English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The scientific debate following the initial formulation of the "bad luck" hypothesis in cancer development highlighted how measures based on analysis of variance are inappropriately used for risk communication. The notion of "explained" variance is not only used to quantify randomness, but also to quantify genetic and environmental contribution to disease in heritability coefficients. In this paper, we demonstrate why such quantifications are generally as problematic as bad luck estimates. We stress the differences in calculation and interpretation between the heritability coefficient and the population attributable fraction, the estimated fraction of all disease events that would not occur if an intervention could successfully prevent the excess genetic risk. We recommend using the population attributable fraction when communicating results regarding the genetic contribution to disease, as this measure is both more relevant from a public health perspective and easier to understand.

Commonly used estimates of the genetic contribution to disease are subject to the same fallacies as bad luck estimates