Figure legand
Figure 1 .The comparison for the responder composition at the first month, the third month and the sixth month. At the first month evaluation, there were 21 major responders, 9 minor responder and 47 non-responders. At the third month evaluation, there were 42 major responders, 10 minor responder and 25 non-responders. At the sixth month evaluation, there were 51 major responders, 11 minor responder and 15 non-responders.
Figure 2. The baseline fetal hemoglobin (HbF) concentration, HbF concentration at the third month of treatment, and HbF concentration at the sixth month of treatment comparison between groups of major response, minor response and no response.A . The baseline HbF concentration were not significantly different between group major response (11.1 (1.7, 77.18) g·L-1), minor response (9.5 (3.58, 15.4) g·L-1) and group no response (6.3 (0.5, 38.4) g·L-1) (**p = 0.063) according to the evaluation at the first month. The differences between any two groups were not significant. B . According to the evaluation at the third month, the baseline HbF concentration was significantly higher in group major response (10.4 (1.7, 77.18) g·L-1) than group minor response (5.32 (2.99, 7.64) g·L-1) and group no response (5.22 (3.3, 7.1) g·L-1) (**p < 0.001, ▲ p = 0.033), while the differences between group minor response and group no response were not significant (p = 1.000). C . According to the evaluation at the third month, the third month HbF concentration was significantly different between group major response (68.4 (9.43, 121.16) g·L-1), group minor response (38.75 (26.78, 50.7) g·L-1) and group no response (25.7 (20.95, 42.7) g·L-1) (**p < 0.001, ▲ p = 0.053), while the differences between group minor response and group no response were not significant (p = 0.734). D . According to the evaluation at the sixth month, the baseline HbF concentration was significantly different between group major response (8.87 (0.625, 77.18) g·L-1), group minor response (5.40 (2.51, 8.34) g·L-1) and group no response (5.18 (2.65, 7.71) g·L-1) (**p = 0.007, ▲ p = 0.09), while the differences between group minor response and group no response were not significant (p = 1.000). E . According to the evaluation at the sixth month, the third month HbF concentration was significantly higher in group major response (63.1 (54.1, 72.1) g·L-1) than group minor response (32.2 (22.7, 41.7) g·L-1) and group no response (29.8 (11.4, 48.2) g·L-1) (**p < 0.001, ▲p < 0.001), while the differences between group minor response and group no response were not significant (p = 0.992). F . According to the evaluation at the sixth month, the sixth month HbF concentration was significantly higher in group major response (84.2 (77.0, 91.4) g·L-1) than group minor response (49.3 (26.7, 71.9) g·L-1) and group no response (39.7 (21.7, 57.7) g·L-1) (**p < 0.001, ▲ p = 0.001), while the differences between group minor response and group no response were not significant (p = 1.000).
Figure 3 .The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for hemoglobin F (HbF) concentration at different stages in predicting probability of major responders at the sixth month.A . The ROC analysis for HbF concentration at baseline in predicting probability of major responders at the sixth month. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.723 (p = 0.002). B . The ROC analysis for HbF concentration at the third month in predicting probability of major responders at the sixth month. The AUC was 0.806 (p < 0.001). C . The ROC analysis for HbF concentration at the sixth month in predicting probability of major responders at the sixth month. The AUC was 0.858 (p < 0.001).