Fig. 7

Comparison between the results of the prediction model and FISH. a The area under the curve of the serum and urine supernatant integration model. b The number of features that the model features changes with the shrinkage parameter. c The characteristics of the proteins and coefficient sizes in the model. d Comparison of the AUC, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy among serum, urine supernatant, and integrated models. e Comparison between the sensitivity of the integration model and that of FISH for PUNLMP, LG, and HG tumors. f Comparison between the sensitivity of the integration model and that of FISH at the Ta, T1, and T2-T4 stages. g Comparison between the sensitivity of the integrated model and FISH in NMIBC, MIBC, and all other patients. h Model comparison of FISH for tumor size; large (≥ 30 mm) and small (< 30 mm). i–l Enhanced CT, FISH, tissue sectioning, and cystoscopy findings in typical patients with small tumors (< 30 mm); p < 0.05; chi-square test