ArticleGlobal epidemiology2025
Calculating preventable risk fractions for exposure-reducing interventions.
Article in Global epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How can causal models be used to quantify the fractions of risk associated with environmental and occupational exposures that would be prevented by reducing exposures by different amounts? This paper provides a constructive answer. It introduces three key metrics - Interventional Probability of Causation (IPoC), Causal Assigned Shares (CAS), and Preventable Risk Fraction (PRF) curves - to help overcome the limitations of traditional association-based metrics, such as Population Attributable Fractions (PAFs), which are sometimes misused to answer interventional causal questions. The tools introduced here provide scenario-specific, individual-level predictions of risk reductions grounded in mechanistic causality rather than associations. Using case studies of benzene exposure and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), smoking and lung cancer, and blood lead levels and mortality, we demonstrate how PRF curves quantify the potential risk-reduction benefits caused by exposure reductions at both the individual and population levels, even under uncertainty or heterogeneity. Monte Carlo simulations capture inter-individual variability, and scenario analyses identify practical thresholds where additional exposure reductions yield minimal added benefit. These methods can provide evidence-based assessments of how specific exposure reductions affect risk. By shifting the focus from attribution to prevention of harm, this framework can potentially advance risk assessment, policy development, and legal decision-making. It offers a simple, easily visualized, transparent, and scientifically rigorous approach to identifying causally effective interventions and quantifying risk-reduction benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.