A Bulge in the Statistics and an error at precisely the point where we would distinguish the FH from the FCH

Barring a genetic test, TG is what distinguishes FCH from FH.  Out of six charts in the 2016 2nd Danish report (below, right), the chart for TG is the only chart with an incorrect label (“1.7”). The broken lines (below, right) are supposed to represent the level of the general population, and we can see that TG is about 0.9, where the broken line sits at the left margin of the 2nd Danish report. But the erroneous printing of “1.7” at the right margin can lead a quick reader to compare it to the 1st Danish report’s result, “1.9.” The FH tend to be closer to normal TG on average whereas the FCH tend to have elevated TG. Also, the 1st Danish report can serve as a proxy for the recommended diagnostic system: a system that weighs circumstantial evidence and provides a score. Higher TG in the 2012 report is consistent with misdiagnosis of the FCH as FH. On the right, in the 2016 report, we see solely molecular results which are consistent with the lipid profile of FH: TG are much lower and closer to normal. The same mutation types on the right, at about 1 mmol/L TG, are accounted for within the TG number in the 2012 report; however, those without a mutation status yet with passing scores have been added in – a majority. So to get an average of 1.9 in the 1st Danish report, there must be a different set of people making up this 1st Danish report, and that group added in must be even higher than 1.9.   We remember that both reports share mostly the same population. Thus, it is clear: when counting only genetic results TG levels are normal, and when including passing scores regardless of mutation status, TG levels double. The doubled TG is consistent with adding in the FCH, and other non-FH, into the FH population. This is achieved in part by de-emphasizing the genetic basis for FH, but also by removing regard for high TG levels in FH identification instructions.