Table 4

Urinary ADP added predictive benefit and model performance

Continuous NRI
(95% CI)P valueIDI
(95% CI)P
valueR2P
valueMean risk difference
(95% CI)ΔTG
(95% CI)
Progression to microalbuminuria
 uADP&AER vs. AER0.062
(−0.272 to 0.235)NS−0.001
(−0.002 to 0.008)NS0.559 vs. 0.558NS0.000
(−0.002 to 0.008)−0.010
(−0.050 to 0.035)
 uADP&AER&PM vs. AER&PM−0.094
(−0.286 to 0.275)NS−0.001
(−0.003 to 0.006)NS0.682 vs. 0.682NS−0.002
(−0.003 to 0.006)0.006
(−0.039 to 0.035)
Progression to macroalbuminuria
 uADP&AER vs. AER0.001
(−0.409 to 0.539)NS−0.003
(−0.009 to 0.022)NS0.680 vs. 0.680NS−0.003
(−0.009 to 0.022)0.004
(−0.079 to 0.068)
 uADP&AER&PM vs. AER&PM−0.070
(−0.423 to 0.646)NS−0.004
(−0.011 to 0.022)NS0.782 vs. 0.782NS−0.003
(−0.010 to 0.021)0.012
(−0.059 to 0.063)
Progression to ESRD
 uADP&AER vs. AER0.794
(0.451 to 1.097)0.030.115
(0.053 to 0.194)<0.00010.652 vs. 0.472<0.00010.117
(0.056 to 0.200)0.092
(0.024 to 0.235)
 uADP&eGFR vs. eGFR0.637
(0.311 to 0.994)<0.0010.087
(0.030 to 0.186)<0.00010.746 vs. 0.663<0.00010.088
(0.029 to 0.172)0.070
(0.042 to 0.191)
 uADP&PM vs. PM0.674
(0.261 to 0.978)<0.0010.084
(0.027 to 0.171)<0.00010.753 vs. 0.683<0.00010.083
(0.021 to 0.166)0.034
(0.004 to 0.197)
 uADP&AER&PM vs. AER&PM0.420
(−0.032 to 0.727)0.0610.015
(−0.003 to 0.065)0.0520.818 vs. 0.8050.0080.020
(−0.003 to 0.064)0.006
(−0.053 to 0.121)
  • Added predictive benefit was analyzed using continuous NRI, IDI, mean risk difference, and ΔTG, whereas the predictive performance of the Cox proportional hazards models was evaluated by explained variability (R2). ΔTG, delta standardized total gain; PM, progression model; uADP&AER, Cox model formed by uADP and AER used together; uADP&eGFR, Cox model formed by uADP and eGFR used together; uADP&PM, Cox model formed by uADP and progression model used together; uADP&AER&PM, Cox model formed by uADP, AER, and progression model used together.