Amanote Research
Register
Sign In
Table 3: Mean Scores for Each Risk Model for Non-Cvd* and CVD Groups in the Sample.
doi 10.7717/peerj.8232/table-3
Full Text
Open PDF
Abstract
Available in
full text
Date
Unknown
Authors
Unknown
Publisher
PeerJ
Related search
Figure 3: Stacked Histograms for the Risk Scores From the ASSIGN (A), Framingham (B), and QRISK®2 (C) Models for Non-CVD and CVD Participants in the TT2015 Sample.
Table 1: Distribution of the Major Characteristics Measured Among the Non-Cvd* and CVD Participants for the Sample (N = 778).
Supplemental Information 3: Percentage Distribution of Persons Categorised by Three Established Risk Models Into Different Risk Levels for Non-CVD and CVD Groups From the TT2015 Study on a Trinidad and Tobago Sample (N = 778).
Figure 1: Map of Trinidad and Tobago Showing the UTT Sample Sites for Non-CVD Participants and Hospitals for CVD Participants.
Analysis of Parameters for CVD Risk Using Non-Invasive Methods
HELIX
Non-Selective Tungsten CVD Technology for Gate Electrodes and Interconnections
The Integration of Epigenetics and Genetics in Nutrition Research for CVD Risk Factors
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
Medicine
Nutrition
Dietetics
Supplemental Information 1: Differences Between 3 CVD Risk Prediction Models.
Table S2: The SH Model Based Nomogram Scores for Each Included Variable in Current Study
