The phrase "a high risk value" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to finance, health, safety, or any situation where risk assessment is relevant.
Example: "Investing in startups often involves a high risk value, but the potential returns can be significant."
Alternatives: "a significant risk factor" or "a considerable risk level."
According to Blair, a relative aerobic capacity below 23 O2ml·kg·mis-1 is regarded as a high risk value for cardiovascular disease in women [ 32].
Multivariable predictors of appropriate shock from the competing risk models (Table 2) included previously documented nonsustained VT, atrial fibrillation, higher serum creatinine, and the absolute difference of QRSd from a high risk value of 130 ms (ie, |QRSd=130|).
The measure of risk associated with a high-risk value, assessed by the Mantel-Haenszel relative risk, was also better than the DYCAST risk estimate but not as good as either CMVRA threshold.
PRIs obtained were sorted in descending order; the critical threshold for each PRI has been chosen using the Pareto criterion: a value >200 corresponds to a high risk, a value >100 corresponds to a medium risk, a value >50 corresponds to a low risk, and a value <50 corresponds to a very low risk [ 8].
The majority of visual formats (91%) were tables with a color-coding system analogous to traffic light colors, indicating low, medium, and high risk values.
Two sets of low risk and two sets of high risk values according to the QT nomogram were chosen.
All continuous risk factor variables were dichotomized to reflect either "normal" or recognized high risk values.
The low risk values for examined parameters (lower than the upper tertile) were coded 0, while the high risk values (higher than the upper tertile) were coded 1.
Independent samples t-test Table 4 shows the proportion of men and women with cardiovascular risk scores at threshold or above and below "high risk" values in 1997-99 who used CVM in 2008.
According to the manufacturer, an index ≤0.3 suggests a low risk of AKI, values between 0.3 and 2.0 suggest a high risk, and values >2.0 suggest a very high risk [15].
The most cost effective screening strategy seems to be contingent screening (cost effectiveness ratio $C26 833 per case of Down's syndrome with a high risk cut-off value of 1 in 30).
