1.9, respectively), and the AUC value remained high (AUC = 0.80) (Fig. 1d). Additionally, to confirm that the varying sample sizes of the different informant combination models were not driving the differences seen in AUC values, all combinations tested were rerun restricted to the 847 participants in the model with the best AUC value (model with all 5 ratings): all results remained similar (data not shown).Table 4Multiple informant logistic regression model combinations of total aggression scores for ASPD prediction, adjusted by sex and ageModel N Model variableOR95% CIsAUC95% CIsPR12 + TR121240PR121.20.9, 1.40.690.62, 0.75TR121.5*1.2, 1.8Sex1.9*1.1, 3.3TR14 + SR14 + TWR14907TR141.6*1.3, 2.10.810.74, 0.88SR141.8*1.4, 2.4TWR141.10.8, 1.6Sex1.20.5, 2.5TR12 + TR14982TR121.3*1.0, 1.70.740.67, 0.81TR141.6*1.3, 2.0Sex1.70.9, 3.2PR12 + TR12 + TR14939PR121.20.9, 1.60.740.66, 0.82TR121.20.9, 1.6TR141.6*1.3, 2.0Sex1.91.0, 3.6SR14 + TWR141191SR141.7*1.3, 2.10.740.67, 0.81TWR141.4*1.1, 1.8Sex1.30.7, 2.3PR12 + TR12 + TR14 + SR14 + TWR14847PR121.20.9, 1.60.820.76, 0.88TR121.31.0, 1.8TR141.5*1.2, 1.9SR141.7*1.3, 2.2TWR141.10.8, 1.5Sex1.30.6, 2.7TR14 + SR14992TR141.6*1.3, 2.00.800.73, 0.87SR141.9*1.5, 2.4Sex1.20.6, 2.4PR parent rating, TR teacher rating, SR self rating, TWR co-twin rating, ASPD antisocial personality disorder, CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, AUC area under the (receiver operating characteristic) curve*p < 0.05
