Table 6. Discrimination power of each of the three models tested in this study by ethnicity.
| Ethnicity | Category | Established CVD risk models | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASSIGN | Framingham | QRISK®2 | ||
| Afro-Trinbagonian (n = 269) | Correct non-CVD (%) | 81.2 | 87.9 | 90.6 |
| Non-CVD in non-differentiating range (% total) | 13.0 | 7.0 | 6.7 | |
| CVD in non-differentiating range (% total) | 20.0 | 33.3 | 30.0 | |
| Correct CVD (%) | 50.0 | 50.0 | 52.5 | |
| Indo-Trinbagonian (n = 253) | Correct non-CVD (%) | 80.0 | 88.3 | 81.5 |
| Non-CVD in non-differentiating range (% total) | 13.1 | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| CVD in non-differentiating range (% total) | 23.9 | 31.1 | 12.8 | |
| Correct CVD (%) | 49.6 | 45.9 | 71.8 | |
| Mixed-Trinbagonian (n = 241) | Correct non-CVD (%) | 80.4 | 87.5 | 85.6 |
| Non-CVD in non-differentiating range (% total) | 11.1 | 9.6 | 10.5 | |
| CVD in non-differentiating range (% total) | 31.3 | 36.5 | 33.7 | |
| Correct CVD (%) | 50.6 | 38.5 | 54.2 | |