Amanote Research
Register
Sign In
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.
doi 10.7717/peerj.8232/fig-3
Full Text
Open PDF
Abstract
Available in
full text
Date
Unknown
Authors
Unknown
Publisher
PeerJ
Related search
Table 4: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Non-Differentiating % for ASSIGN, Framingham and QRISK®2 Risk Models.
Table 3: Mean Scores for Each Risk Model for Non-Cvd* and CVD Groups in the Sample.
Figure 1: Map of Trinidad and Tobago Showing the UTT Sample Sites for Non-CVD Participants and Hospitals for CVD Participants.
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).
Table 1: Distribution of the Major Characteristics Measured Among the Non-Cvd* and CVD Participants for the Sample (N = 778).
Table 5: Classification Characteristics for ASSIGN, Framingham and QRISK2 Models for the Sample.
Figure 2: Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) Plot for Three Established CVD Risk Prediction Models in the Trinidad and Tobago Population.
Supplemental Information 1: Differences Between 3 CVD Risk Prediction Models.
Analysis of Parameters for CVD Risk Using Non-Invasive Methods
HELIX
