Framingham score adapted: a valid alternative for estimating cardiovascular risk in epidemiological studies

Table 3 Predictive values of adapted Framingham risk scores compared to Framingham’s original risk score

FRS adapted	CVD-risk classification	Sensitivity	Specificity	Accuracy
Adapted FRS-SAH	Low versus intermediate to high-risk	89.0 (85.5–91.9)	93.8 (85.5–92.1)	92.5%
Adapted FRS-SAH	Low and intermediate versus high-risk	100.0 (69.2–100.0)	92.4 (90.8–93.7)	92.4%
Adapted FRS-DLP	Low versus intermediate to high-risk	71.3 (66.5–75.7)	92.1 (90.3–93.7)	86.4%
Adapted FRS-DLP	Low and intermediate versus high-risk	60.0 (26.2–87.8)	97.3 (96.3–98.1)	87.0%
Adapted FRS-SAH and DLP	Low versus intermediate to high-risk	58.5 (53.4–63.4)	95.5 (94.1–96.7)	85.3%
Adapted FRS-SAH and DLP	Low and intermediate versus high-risk	30.0 (6.7–65.2)	97.9 (97.0-98.6)	87.4%

The table compares the predictive values of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and accuracy between the adapted Framingham models and the original one, using two risk classifications: ‘low versus intermediate/high risk’ and ‘low/intermediate versus high risk’. The adapted Framingham Risk Score (FRS) was calculated using self-reported health data: (A) FRS-SAH: Based only on self-reported hypertension (hypertension diagnosis and medication use). (B) FRS-DLP: Based only on self-reported lipid profile (dyslipidemia diagnosis and medication use). (C) FRS-SAH and DLP: Combined self-reported hypertension and lipid profile. The values are presented in percentages with the respective confidence intervals. The “Accuracy” values represent the percentage of cases in which the predictive model was correct. This value is calculated as the sum of true positives and true negatives, divided by the total number of cases (TP + TN) / (TP + TN + FP + FN)

ISSN: 1471-2261