Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of the performance of Models 1 and 2

From: Mapping EORTC QLQ-C30 onto EQ-5D for the assessment of cancer patients

   Model 1a Model 2b
Derivation set    
Adjusted R2   0.511 0.516
RMSE (% RMSE)   0.095 (8.1) 0.095 (8.1)
MAE (SD)   0.069 (0.065) 0.069 (0.066)
MAE > 0.05(%)   48.7 50.1
MAE > 0.1(%)   22.4 23.1
EQ-5D index Actual Predicted Predicted
Mean (SD) 0.824 (0.137) 0.823 (0.098) 0.824 (0.098)
Validation set    
RMSE (% RMSE)   0.083 (7.1) 0.085 (7.2)
MAE (SD)   0.066 (0.052) 0.066 (0.053)
MAE > 0.05(%)   53.7 49.6
MAE > 0.1(%)   23.6 24.4
EQ-5D index Actual Predict Predict
Mean (SD) 0.871 (0.113) 0.873 (0.083) 0.872 (0.085)
  1. aModel 1 included all functioning and symptom scales and items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 as explanatory variables.
  2. bModel 2 applied backward elimination to Model 1.