Table 4.

Comparison Between Self-Identified Race- and Biogeographic Ancestry-based Categories in Predicting the Risk of Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components in Males and Females, Heart SCORE Study, July 2009–April 2010^a

	Males						Females
	Self-Identified Race			Biogeographic Ancestry			Self-Identified Race			Biogeographic Ancestry
	ORb	95% CI	P Valuec	OR	95% CI	P Value	OR	95% CI	P Value	OR	95% CI	P Value
Metabolic syndromed	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	0.001	NS	NS	<0.0001	NS	NS	0.005
Glucose	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS		NS	NS
Triglycerides	0.4	0.2, 0.6	0.004	NS	NS	NS	0.4	0.3, 0.6	<0.0005	0.7	0.6, 0.8	<0.0005
Hypertension	2.1	1.1, 3.8	0.02	1.3	1.0, 1.3	0.04	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Coronary artery calcification	0.3	0.1, 0.8	0.03	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; Heart SCORE, Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation; NS, not significant; OR, odds ratio.

^a For definitions of variables, see Tables 1 and 2.

^b Odds ratio for the presence of metabolic syndrome criteria.

^c False discovery rate-adjusted, 2-sided P value. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

^d Metabolic syndrome was defined according to National Cholesterol Education Program criteria; subjects were classified as “normal” (reference group), “with metabolic syndrome” (group 1), or “with a history of diabetes” (group 2) and compared using analysis of variance (males—self-identified race: NS; biogeographic ancestry: F = 4.9 (4 df); females—self-identified race: F = 1.4 (1 df); biogeographic ancestry: F = 3.7 (4 df)), with age, gender, smoking status, current physical activity level, education, and income as covariates. Individual components of the metabolic syndrome which did not use gender-specific cutoffs were evaluated by means of logistic regression, with age, smoking status, current physical activity level, education, and income as covariates in all models.