Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value.
Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments02:46

Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments

Counting is the type of measurement that is free from uncertainty, provided the number of objects being counted does not change during the process. Such measurements result in exact numbers. By counting the eggs in a carton, for instance, one can determine exactly how many eggs are there in the carton. Similarly, the numbers of defined quantities are also exact. For example, 1 foot is exactly 12 inches, 1 inch is exactly 2.54 centimeters, and 1 gram is exactly 0.001 kilograms. Quantities...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Integration of aggregate data in causally interpretable meta-analysis by inverse weighting.

Biometrics·2026
Same author

IV-learner: learning conditional average treatment effects using instrumental variables.

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same author

Health-related Quality of Life Outcomes of Salvage Metastasis-directed Treatment Versus Elective Nodal Treatment for Oligorecurrent Nodal Prostate Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the Phase 2, Open-label PEACE V-STORM Randomized Trial.

European urology oncology·2026
Same author

Variable importance measures for heterogeneous treatment effects.

Biometrics·2025
Same author

Two stage least squares with time-varying instruments: An application to an evaluation of treatment intensification for type-2 diabetes.

Statistical methods in medical research·2025
Same author

Orthogonal prediction of counterfactual outcomes.

Journal of causal inference·2025
Same journal

A SEQUENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR TREATMENT BY COVARIATE INTERACTIONS.

Statistica Sinica·2026
Same journal

DEFINING AND ESTIMATING PRINCIPAL STRATUM SPECIFIC NATURAL MEDIATION EFFECTS WITH SEMI-COMPETING RISKS DATA.

Statistica Sinica·2026
Same journal

Longitudinal Modeling of Rank-based Global Outcome.

Statistica Sinica·2026
Same journal

INTEGRATING INCOMPLETE DATA FOR MEDIATION ANALYSIS.

Statistica Sinica·2026
Same journal

COMMUNITY EXTRACTION OF NETWORK DATA UNDER STOCHASTIC BLOCK MODELS.

Statistica Sinica·2026
Same journal

STATISTICAL INFERENCE FOR MEAN FUNCTIONS OF COMPLEX 3D OBJECTS.

Statistica Sinica·2025
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 17, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
08:27

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Correcting Instrumental Variables Estimators for Systematic Measurement Error.

Stijn Vansteelandt1, Manoochehr Babanezhad, Els Goetghebeur

  • 1Ghent University, Belgium.

Statistica Sinica
|January 5, 2010
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Instrumental variables (IV) estimators can correct for exposure measurement error and unmeasured confounders. This study combines IV approaches to improve causal effect estimation in linear models, showing adequate performance in simulations and a blood pressure trial.

More Related Videos

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 17, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits
08:27

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
14:14

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Epidemiology
  • Causal Inference

Background:

  • Instrumental variables (IV) are used to address measurement error in exposure.
  • IV is increasingly popular for estimating causal effects, accounting for unmeasured confounders.
  • Many causal questions arise from data with significant measurement error.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To combine IV approaches for correcting causal effect estimators in linear models.
  • To address systematic measurement error in exposure using IV methods.
  • To improve IV-based causal effect estimation when exposure data is flawed.

Main Methods:

  • Developed novel IV estimators for linear (structural mean) models.
  • Utilized a baseline measurement associated with observed exposure.
  • Incorporated prior knowledge about weakly identified parameters in frequentist analysis.

Main Results:

  • The proposed estimators demonstrated adequate performance in finite samples.
  • Validated through simulation studies and analysis of a blood pressure reduction trial.
  • Incorporating prior knowledge significantly improved frequentist analyses.

Conclusions:

  • The combined IV approach effectively corrects for systematic measurement error in exposure.
  • The method enhances the accuracy of IV-based causal effect estimation.
  • Prior knowledge integration offers substantial improvements in causal inference.