Objective
To demonstrate how to build a prediction model in logistic regression using tools available in Stata 12 and above.
The data
The ICU data set consists of a sample of 200 subjects who were part of a much larger study on survival of patients following admission to an adult intensive care.
The major goal of this study was to develop a logistic regression model to predict the probability of survival to hospital discharge of these patients and to study the risk factors associated with ICU mortality based on the risk factors in this dataset.
The ICU dataset used in this document
use icu, clear
The dataset can be summarised as:
metadata *
Name  Index  Label  Value Label Name  Format  Value Label Values  n  unique  missing 

sta  1  Vital Status  sta  %27.0g  0 "Alive at hospital discharge" 1 "Dead at hospital discharge"  200  2  0 
age  2  Age in years  %9.0g  200  64  0  
sex  3  Sex  sex  %9.0g  0 "female" 1 "male"  200  2  0 
race  4  Race  race  %9.0g  1 "white" 2 "black" 3 "other"  200  3  0 
can  5  Cancer part of present problem  can  %9.0g  0 "no" 1 "yes"  200  2  0 
crn  6  History of chronic renal failure  crn  %9.0g  0 "no" 1 "yes"  200  2  0 
cpr  7  CPR prior to ICU admission  cpr  %9.0g  0 "no" 1 "yes"  200  2  0 
sys  8  Systolic blood pressure mm Hg  %9.0g  200  63  0  
hra  9  Heart rate at ICU admission beats/min  %9.0g  200  81  0  
typ  10  Type of admission  typ  %9.0g  0 "elective" 1 "emergency"  200  2  0 
po2  11  PO2 from initial blood gases  po2  %9.0g  0 ">60" 1 "=<60"  200  2  0 
ph  12  PH from initial blood gases  ph  %9.0g  0 ">7.25" 1 "=<7.25"  200  2  0 
pco  13  PCO2 from initial blood gases  pco  %9.0g  0 "<=45" 1 ">45"  200  2  0 
locd  14  Level of consciousness at ICU admission*  locd  %22.0g  0 "no coma or deep stupor" 1 "coma or deep stupor"  200  2  0 
Screening for risk factors to use
In prediction modeling the objective is to obtain the most parsimonious and yet the best fitting model possible.
Here the outcome is dichotome Alive/Dead at hospital discharge.
Based on significant main effects a base of risk factors are chosen at first.
Significance can be decided using eg ttest or similar when the risk factor is continuous and twosided chisquare tests when the risk factor is categorical or by fitting simple logistic/logistic regression.
The first can be done eg using the command basetable and the second by running through the a set of simple logistic regressions.
If necessary risk factors due to clinical reasons can also be chosen. However, they will usually have no effect in the predictions if the aren't significant in the final prediction model.
Using basetable
The command can do comparisons between the outcome (Alive/Dead at hospital discharge) and the risk factors.
When the risk factor is categorical chisquare is used and since the median is reported a KruskalWallis test is used.
basetable sta age(%6.1f) sex(male) race(c) can(yes) crn(yes) cpr(yes) sys(%6.1f) ///
hra(%6.1f) typ(emergency) po2(=<60) ph(=<7.25) pco(<=45) ///
locd(coma or deep stupor), continuousreport(iqi)
Columns by: Vital Status  Alive at hospital discharge  Dead at hospital discharge  Total  Pvalue 

n (%)  160 (80.0)  40 (20.0)  200 (100.0)  
Age in years, median (iqi)  61.0 (41.3; 71.0)  68.0 (55.5; 75.0)  63.0 (46.2; 72.0)  0.01 
Sex (male), n (%)  60 (37.5)  16 (40.0)  76 (38.0)  0.77 
Race, n (%)  
white, n (%)  138 (86.3)  37 (92.5)  175 (87.5)  
black, n (%)  14 (8.8)  1 (2.5)  15 (7.5)  
other, n (%)  8 (5.0)  2 (5.0)  10 (5.0)  0.40 
Cancer part of present problem (yes), n (%)  16 (10.0)  4 (10.0)  20 (10.0)  1.00 
History of chronic renal failure (yes), n (%)  11 (6.9)  8 (20.0)  19 (9.5)  0.01 
CPR prior to ICU admission (yes), n (%)  6 (3.8)  7 (17.5)  13 (6.5)  0.00 
Systolic blood pressure mm Hg, median (iqi)  132.0 (112.0; 154.0)  126.0 (87.0; 140.0)  130.0 (110.0; 150.0)  0.01 
Heart rate at ICU admission beats/min, median (iqi)  95.0 (80.0; 117.5)  96.0 (81.0; 121.3)  96.0 (80.0; 118.7)  0.63 
Type of admission (emergency), n (%)  109 (68.1)  38 (95.0)  147 (73.5)  0.00 
PO2 from initial blood gases (=<60), n (%)  11 (6.9)  5 (12.5)  16 (8.0)  0.24 
PH from initial blood gases (=<7.25), n (%)  9 (5.6)  4 (10.0)  13 (6.5)  0.32 
PCO2 from initial blood gases (<=45), n (%)  144 (90.0)  36 (90.0)  180 (90.0)  1.00 
Level of consciousness at ICU admission* (coma or deep stupor), n (%)  2 (1.3)  13 (32.5)  15 (7.5)  0.00 
Significant risk factors are here age, cpr, sys, typ and locd.
Estimating crude main effects
Repeatedly using logistic or logistic eg by
foreach var of varlist agelocd {
logistic sta `var', or
}
logistic sta, or
The last logistic outside the foreach loop generates the crude estimate.
Summary below is inspired by powerpoint presentation of S. Lemeshow in 2015.
Estimate  lb  ub  p  Loglikelihood  G  f  P  

age  1.028  1.007  1.049  0.009  96.153  7.855  1  0.005 
sex  1.111  0.547  2.258  0.771  100.038  0.084  1  0.771 
race(1)  1.000  98.951  2.260  2  0.323  
race(2)  0.266  0.034  2.092  0.208  98.951  2.260  2  0.323 
race(3)  0.932  0.190  4.579  0.931  98.951  2.260  2  0.323 
can  1.000  0.315  3.174  1.000  100.080  0.000  1  1.000 
crn  3.386  1.261  9.091  0.015  97.368  5.424  1  0.020 
cpr  5.444  1.718  17.253  0.004  96.114  7.932  1  0.005 
sys  0.983  0.972  0.995  0.005  95.668  8.826  1  0.003 
hra  1.003  0.990  1.016  0.653  99.980  0.201  1  0.654 
typ  8.890  2.064  38.290  0.003  92.524  15.112  1  0.000 
po2  1.935  0.632  5.927  0.248  99.460  1.240  1  0.265 
ph  1.864  0.543  6.395  0.322  99.626  0.910  1  0.340 
pco  1.000  0.315  3.174  1.000  100.080  0.000  1  1.000 
locd  38.037  8.125  178.074  0.000  82.778  34.604  1  0.000 
sta  0.250  0.177  0.354  100.080 
The same risk factors as before (age, cpr, sys, typ and locd) are significant.
Conclusion
age, crn, cpr, sys, typ and locd are included due to statistical significance. can and pco are indcluded due to clinical significance.
Fitting the multivariable model
Fitting the main effects
Based on the fitting of univariate models and clinical considerations we identified as potential variables for a multivariate model.
The results of fitting a model containing these variables follow:
logistic sta age i.crn i.cpr sys i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco, or
estimates store first
estout first, cells("b(fmt(2)) ci(fmt(2)) p(fmt(2))") varwidth(30) eform drop(0* _cons)
first  

b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  
sta  age  1.04  1.01  1.07  0.00 
1.crn  1.72  0.45  6.56  0.42  
1.cpr  2.21  0.41  11.95  0.36  
sys  0.98  0.97  1.00  0.04  
1.typ  18.50  2.92  117.25  0.00  
1.locd  58.21  7.92  428.10  0.00  
1.can  9.75  1.77  53.80  0.01  
1.pco  0.23  0.04  1.38  0.11 
We try fitting a new model dropping crn and cpr since they are highly nonsignificant.
logistic sta age sys i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco, or
estimates store second
A likelihood ratio test comparing the first and second is performed:
lrtest first second
Likelihoodratio test LR chi2(2) = 1.57 (Assumption: second nested in first) Prob > chi2 = 0.4560
The pvalue from the likelihood ratio test is 0.46.
So there is no significant difference between the two models. And hence we choose the smaller. Due to clinical significance are the variables can and locd kept in the model.
Below are the likelihood ratio tests for adding one at a step of the remaining variables.
The code used is:
capture matrix drop tbl
capture matrix drop row
quietly logistic sta age sys typ locd can pco, or
estimates store A
foreach var in sex i.race hra po2 ph {
quietly logistic sta `var' age sys typ locd can pco, or
estimates store B
lrtest B A
matrix row = r(chi2), r(df), r(p)
matrix rownames row = `=subinstr("`var'", "i.", "", .)'
matrix tbl = nullmat(tbl) \ row
}
matrix colnames tbl = "LR chi2" df P
And the results are:
LR chi2  df  P  

sex  1.17  1  0.28 
race  0.97  2  0.62 
hra  0.06  1  0.81 
po2  0.15  1  0.70 
ph  4.44  1  0.04 
The variable ph is significant and is hence added to the model.
Assessing the scale of the continuous risk factors
Next the continuous risk factors age and sys are examined for non linearity.
There are several methods for doing

Quick and Dirty Methods
 Quartile design variables
 Testing for quadratic effect

More computer intensive methods
 Smoothed Scatter Plot using lowess
 Fractional polynomials using fp
 Restricted cubic splines, mkspline
The continuous risk factor age
Quartile design for age
The idea is to generate quartiles for the continuous risk factor and look at the development for odds ratios in the 4 groups.
The xvalues are eg mean or median of age for each group.
In logistic regression the log odds are linear as a function of the risk factor (age). So the points (mean age, log odds) should appear on a line.
The recipe is:
 Generate group variable by xtile
xtile age_grp = age, n(4)
 Calculate and save log odds
quietly logistic sta i.age_grp sys i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
matrix logodds = r(table)'
matrix logodds = logodds[1..4, "b"]
 Calculate and save the median (or mean) age
sumat age, stat(p50) rowby(age_grp)
matrix median_age = r(sumat)
matrix tbl = median_age, logodds
 Convert median age and log odds to variables to plot
svmat tbl, names(col)
twoway (connected b p50, sort) (lfit b p50), name(age_quartile_design, replace)
The (age, log odds) appear to be linear.
Smoothed Scatter Plot for age
This analysis are for univariable models only. So there are no adjustments possible.
The command ksm is replaced with the command lowess.
lowess sta age, logit name(age_smothed_scatter_plot, replace)
Also here monotonic/linear progression is present.
Conclusion for age
The effect of risk factor age is assumed linear.
The continuous risk factor sys
Quartile design for sys
The plot below indicates be non linearity.
However looking at odds ratios for the quartiles it might only being the last quartile that is signifcant.
Looking at estimates is seems fair to assume that only the fourth quarter is necessary in the model:
estout sys_grp, cells("b(fmt(2)) ci(fmt(2)) p(fmt(2))") varwidth(30) ///
eform noabbrev keep(*sys*)
sys_grp  

b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  
sta  1bn.sys_grp  1.00  1.00  1.00  
2.sys_grp  0.92  0.28  3.00  0.90  
3.sys_grp  1.02  0.32  3.24  0.98  
4.sys_grp  0.19  0.04  0.89  0.04 
This is confirmed below:
quietly logistic sta i.sys_grp age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_grp_all
quietly logistic sta 4.sys_grp age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_grp_4
estadd lrtest sys_grp_all
estout sys_grp_all sys_grp_4, cells("b(fmt(2)) ci(fmt(2)) p(fmt(2))") ///
varwidth(30) noabbrev eform keep(*sys*) stats(lrtest_p, labels("LR p"))
sys_grp_all  sys_grp_4  

b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  
sta  1bn.sys_grp  1.00  1.00  1.00  
2.sys_grp  0.92  0.28  3.00  0.90  
3.sys_grp  1.02  0.32  3.24  0.98  
4.sys_grp  0.19  0.04  0.89  0.04  0.19  0.04  0.81  0.02  
LR p  0.99 
One can choose just to keep the fourth quartile in the model to handle the non linearity.
Smoothed Scatter Plot for sys
This appears not to be linear just like the Quartile design plot also indicated.
Quadratic effect for sys
Testing for quatradic effect can be done simply by adding the risk factor squared (c.sys#c.sys) to the model and do a likelihood ratio test for the squared term.
quietly logistic sta sys c.sys#c.sys age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_quadratic
quietly logistic sta sys age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_linear
estadd lrtest sys_quadratic
estout sys_quadratic sys_linear, cells("b(fmt(2)) ci(fmt(2)) p(fmt(2))") ///
varwidth(30) noabbrev eform keep(*sys*) stats(lrtest_p, labels("LR P value"))
sys_quadratic  sys_linear  

b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  
sta  sys  0.98  0.91  1.04  0.49  0.99  0.97  1.00  0.04 
c.sys#c.sys  1.00  1.00  1.00  0.79  
LR p  0.79 
There seems to be no quadratic effect.
Modelling non linearity with cubic splines
The dependency of sys might not be quadratic. More complex dependencies can be modelled by restricted cubic splines.
First cubic splines are generated by mkspline. Here the sys is modelled by 4 coherent cubic functions between the 5 knots. outside the first and last knot the sys is assumed to be linear.
mkspline sys_csp = sys, nknots(5) cubic
Then risk factor sys is replaced by the 4 variables generated by mkspline. However, the first variable is always the identity, so sys = sys_csp1.
Testing linearity is then at matter of testing the other generated variables equal to 0.
quietly logistic sta sys_csp* age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_csp
quietly logistic sta sys_csp1 age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_linear
estadd lrtest sys_csp
estout sys_csp sys_linear, cells("b(fmt(2)) ci(fmt(2)) p(fmt(2))") ///
varwidth(30) noabbrev eform keep(sys*) stats(lrtest_p, labels("LR p"))
sys_csp  sys_linear  

b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  
sta  sys_csp1  0.95  0.89  1.01  0.10  0.99  0.97  1.00  0.04 
sys_csp2  1.32  0.90  1.94  0.16  
sys_csp3  0.24  0.03  2.00  0.19  
sys_csp4  6.71  0.26  170.31  0.25  
LR p  0.54 
The pvalue from the likelihood ratio test is .
So there is no significant non linear effect according to this analysis.
Modelling non linearity with fractional polymials
In Stata there is a command for doing fractional polymials all in one step. The idea is to generate an optimal set of transformed variables of sys (default 2) in optimal powers.
The set of optimal variables replaces the original variable in a regression.
In the output there is a test of linearity
The pvalue for the partial F test comparing the models and the lowest deviance model is given in the P(*) column.
fp <sys>, replace: logistic sta <sys> age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco
(fitting 44 models) (....10%....20%....30%....40%....50%....60%....70%....80%....90%....100%) Fractional polynomial comparisons:  sys  df Deviance Dev. dif. P(*) Powers + omitted  0 137.109 4.835 0.305 linear  1 132.881 0.608 0.895 1 m = 1  2 132.784 0.510 0.775 .5 m = 2  4 132.274 0.000  2 2  (*) P = sig. level of model with m = 2 based on chi^2 of dev. dif. Logistic regression Number of obs = 200 LR chi2(7) = 67.89 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = 66.136762 Pseudo R2 = 0.3392  sta  Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] + sys_1  0.000 0.000 1.62 0.10 0.000 . sys_2  . . 1.72 0.08 0.000 . age  1.040 0.014 2.97 0.00 1.013 1.066  typ  emergency  21.049 20.049 3.20 0.00 3.254 136.149  locd  coma or deep stupor  56.550 56.272 4.06 0.00 8.043 397.601  can  yes  10.042 9.112 2.54 0.01 1.696 59.453  pco  >45  0.239 0.217 1.58 0.11 0.040 1.415 _cons  0.000 0.000 5.29 0.00 0.000 0.005  Note: _cons estimates baseline odds.
From P(*) in the Fractional polynomial comparisons it is seen that sys can ignored totally.
Conclusion for sys
There is no nonlinear effect of sys, but there seems to be an effect when is in the highest quarter.
Conclusion
After defining a variable for the upper quarter of systolic blood preasure:
generate sys_grp_4q = (sys_grp == 4) if !missing(sys_grp)
label variable sys_grp_4q "4th quarter systolic BP"
label define sys_grp_4q 0 "No" 1 "Yes"
the final model is chosen to be
quietly logistic sta sys_grp_4q age i.typ i.locd i.can i.pco i.ph
estimates store sys_grp_4
estout sys_grp_4, cells("b(fmt(2)) ci(fmt(2)) p(fmt(2))") varwidth(30) ///
drop(0.*) eform noabbrev
sys_grp_4  

b  lower 95%ci  upper 95%ci  p  
sta  sys_grp_4q  0.19  0.04  0.81  0.02 
age  1.05  1.02  1.08  0.00  
1.typ  18.92  2.98  120.05  0.00  
1.locd  113.93  13.48  963.14  0.00  
1.can  10.45  1.93  56.50  0.01  
1.pco  0.11  0.02  0.74  0.02  
1.ph  6.44  1.16  35.85  0.03  
_cons  0.00  0.00  0.01  0.00 
Examining the final fit of the model
Pearson or HosmerLemeshow goodnessoffit test
The postestimation command estat gof performs the HosmerLemeshow goodnessoffit test in Stata when the option group is set with a number. A depreciated command doing the same is lfit.
estat gof, table group(8)
Logistic model for sta, goodnessoffit test (Table collapsed on quantiles of estimated probabilities) ++  Group  Prob  Obs_1  Exp_1  Obs_0  Exp_0  Total  ++++++  1  0.0103  0  0.1  25  24.9  25   2  0.0316  0  0.5  25  24.5  25   3  0.0438  2  0.9  23  24.1  25   4  0.0916  2  1.6  23  23.4  25   5  0.1773  4  3.3  21  21.7  25  ++++++  6  0.2886  4  5.9  22  20.1  26   7  0.4547  9  8.6  15  15.4  24   8  0.9832  19  19.0  6  6.0  25  ++ number of observations = 200 number of groups = 8 HosmerLemeshow chi2(6) = 3.01 Prob > chi2 = 0.8075
It is worth noting that the first 5 expected values in the event of death at discharge from hospital all are below 5. Usually in chisquare test the expected values are required to be above 5.
It the option group is not set estat gof does the Pearson test.
estat gof
Logistic model for sta, goodnessoffit test number of observations = 200 number of covariate patterns = 145 Pearson chi2(137) = 81.72 Prob > chi2 = 1.0000
The HosmerLemeshow goodnessoffit test is critised being dependent on the number of groups chosen for the test.
Eg Long & Freese shows on page 223 an example of opposite conclusions depending on whether the numbers of groups are 9 or 11 (model does not fit, p ~ 3%) in contrast to if the number is 10 (model fits, p ~ 8%). In number of groups from 5 to 15 5 groups returns a p value of 25.7% whereas 12 groups returns a p value of 0.7%. So there is quite a variation depending of group number.
However in this dataset the variation does not lead to different conclusions with respect to fit.
df  chi2  p  

Number  10  8  2  0.98 
of  15  13  9  0.77 
groups  20  18  12  0.85 
25  23  18  0.77  
30  28  17  0.95  
35  33  20  0.96  
40  38  22  0.98 
Other measures of fit
In Long & Freese a command fitstat is demonstrated.
It needs to be installed by findit spost9
or findit spost13
depending on
your Stata version.
As guidelines all R squared has the same interpretation being between 0 and 1 and measures the variation explained by the model.
The Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) are both goodness of fit measures penalising the number of parameters used in the model to use for comparison of different models (the lowest value being best).
fitstat
 logistic + Loglikelihood  Model  63.233 Interceptonly  100.080 + Chisquare  Deviance(df=192)  126.466 LR(df=7)  73.695 pvalue  0.000 + R2  McFadden  0.368 McFadden(adjusted)  0.288 CoxSnell/ML  0.308 CraggUhler/Nagelkerke  0.487 Efron  0.388 Tjur's D  0.389 Count  0.875 Count(adjusted)  0.375 + IC  AIC  142.466 AIC divided by N  0.712 BIC(df=8)  168.853
Residual plots
The recipe below is inspired by Dupont.
First restore the estimates for the selected model
estimates restore sys_grp_4
 Numbering the covariate patterns
predict J, number
label variable J "jth covariate pattern"
 Estimate the pi's for the covariate patterns
predict p, p
label variable p "Estimate of pi for the jth covariate pattern"
 Calculate Pearson (standardized) residuals
predict rstandard, rstandard
label variable rstandard "Pearson residuals"
 Calculate the Delta chisquared influence statistic $$\Delta\chi_j^2 = \frac{Pearson \, residual_j^2}{1leverage_j}$$
predict dx2, dx2
label variable dx2 "Delta chisquared influence"
 Calculate the Deltabeta influence
predict dbeta, dbeta
label variable dbeta "DeltaBeta influence"
 For graph purposes separate the Delta chisquared depending on the sign of the Pearson residual
generate dx2_pos = dx2 if rstandard >= 0
generate dx2_neg = dx2 if rstandard < 0
 Do the graph
twoway ///
(scatter dx2_pos p [weight=dbeta], symbol(oh) mlwidth(thick) color(black)) ///
(scatter dx2_neg p [weight=dbeta], symbol(oh) mlwidth(thick) color(gs8)) ///
(scatter dx2_pos p [weight=dbeta] if dx2_pos > 3, color(black) mlabel(J) mlabposition(3) msymbol(none) mlabgap(medium) mcolor(black)) ///
(scatter dx2_neg p [weight=dbeta] if dx2_neg > 3, color(gs8) mlabel(J) mlabposition(3) msymbol(none) mlabgap(medium) mcolor(black)) ///
, yline(3.84) legend(order(1 "Positive" 2 "Negative")) ///
ytitle(Squared Std Pearson Residuals) ///
name(sqr_std_P_res, replace)
One could consider whether one or more of the influential covariate patterns should be ignored from the list below.
Or maybe it is possible to identify covariate patterns that the model predicts poorly.
sort dx2
keep sta sys_grp_4q age typ locd can pco ph dbeta dx2 p
list if dx2 > 3.84
++  sta age can typ ph pco locd sys_g~4q p dx2 dbeta   189.  Dead at hospital discharge 75 yes elective >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .22070255 4.052487 .59852388  190.  Alive at hospital discharge 20 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03738583 5.3798264 .38055762  191.  Dead at hospital discharge 20 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03738583 5.3798264 .38055762  192.  Alive at hospital discharge 20 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03738583 5.3798264 .38055762  193.  Alive at hospital discharge 20 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03738583 5.3798264 .38055762   194.  Alive at hospital discharge 69 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 1 .06873963 6.2190947 .43706282  195.  Dead at hospital discharge 69 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 1 .06873963 6.2190947 .43706282  196.  Alive at hospital discharge 19 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03573318 8.1105434 .4200881  197.  Dead at hospital discharge 19 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03573318 8.1105434 .4200881  198.  Alive at hospital discharge 19 no emergency >7.25 <=45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .03573318 8.1105434 .4200881   199.  Dead at hospital discharge 53 no emergency =<7.25 >45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .11155914 8.5918097 .67746894  200.  Dead at hospital discharge 91 no emergency >7.25 >45 no coma or deep stupor 0 .10389305 9.523432 .99167298  ++
Sensitivity and specificity
The command estat classification reports summary statistics like the classification table for the model.
A depreciated command doing the same is lstat.
estat classification
Logistic model for sta  True  Classified  D ~D  Total ++ +  18 3  21   22 157  179 ++ Total  40 160  200 Classified + if predicted Pr(D) >= .5 True D defined as sta != 0  Sensitivity Pr( + D) 45.00% Specificity Pr( ~D) 98.13% Positive predictive value Pr( D +) 85.71% Negative predictive value Pr(~D ) 87.71%  False + rate for true ~D Pr( +~D) 1.88% False  rate for true D Pr(  D) 55.00% False + rate for classified + Pr(~D +) 14.29% False  rate for classified  Pr( D ) 12.29%  Correctly classified 87.50% 
Last update: 20181116, Stata version 15.1