Genotypic or Phenotypic? Which one is more accurate? … As for profit, why not either one?

In 2012, Nordestgaard and Benn, and two others, used mostly a clinical scoring system in the 1st Danish report. Genetic hits of the top four most frequent mutations constituted a minority of these FH results.We are supposed to infer that the other mutations, which were not targeted in the genetic testing, are present in the scoring system’s results. But my reconciliation of the Danish reports demonstrates that this is mathematically impossible. In 2016 the same four authors used only genetic testing, targeting the same four mutations, for their prevalence results, and this time we are supposed to derive, mathematically, the number of remaining mutations. However, we can also compare — decisively — these 2016 genetic results to the 2012 genetic results. This is decisive because two-thirds of the same people in the 2012 report are used in the 2016 report. The use of mostly the same population leaves us with an opportunity for a critical deduction. I cannot, for example, say that a slice can be larger than the pie it is cut out of.  Just so, the number of genetic hits which originally also passed the scoring system in 2012 cannot possibly be more than the genetic hits which also originally passed the scoring system in 2016. Thus, the majority of genetic hits in 2012 did not originally pass the scoring system, but were promoted after genetic testing. Using the authors own method for mathematical derivation, their counterpart – the untargeted mutations — were abandoned in 2012.

Genotypic or Phenotypic? Which one is more accurate? … As for profit, why not either one?