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

Test for Homogeneity01:23

Test for Homogeneity

1.6K
The goodness–of–fit test can be used to decide whether a population fits a given distribution, but it will not suffice to decide whether two populations follow the same unknown distribution. A different test, called the test for homogeneity, can be used to conclude whether two populations have the same distribution. To calculate the test statistic for a test for homogeneity, follow the same procedure as with the test of independence. The hypotheses for the test for homogeneity can...
1.6K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

708
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
708
Statistical Hypothesis Testing01:16

Statistical Hypothesis Testing

6.0K
Hypothesis testing is a critical statistical procedure facilitating informed, evidence-based decisions. It begins with a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation, or a prediction about a population parameter. This hypothesis can be either a null hypothesis (H0), indicating no effect or difference, or an alternative hypothesis (Ha), suggesting an effect or difference.
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
6.0K
Bonferroni Test01:10

Bonferroni Test

2.5K
The Bonferroni test is a statistical test named after Carlo Emilio Bonferroni, an Italian mathematician best known for Bonferroni inequalities. This statistical test is a type of multiple comparison test to determine which means are different than the rest. Bonferroni test can minimize the Type 1 error by reducing the significance level alpha, which otherwise increases with sample pairs.
The means of different samples are first paired in all possible combinations.
The null hypothesis of the...
2.5K
Significance Testing: Overview01:04

Significance Testing: Overview

10.1K
Significance testing is a set of statistical methods used to test whether a claim about a parameter is valid. In analytical chemistry, significance testing is used primarily to determine whether the difference between two values comes from determinate or random errors. The effect of a particular change in the measurement protocol, analyst, or sample itself can cause a deviation from the expected result. In the case of a suspected deviation/outlier, we need to be able to confirm mathematically...
10.1K
Critical Region, Critical Values and Significance Level01:16

Critical Region, Critical Values and Significance Level

12.0K
The critical region, critical value, and significance level are interdependent concepts crucial in hypothesis testing.
In hypothesis testing, a sample statistic is converted to a test statistic using z, t, or chi-square distribution. A critical region is an area under the curve in  probability distributions demarcated by the critical value. When the test statistic falls in this region, it suggests that the null hypothesis must be rejected. As this region contains all those values of the...
12.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

The Univariate Distribution of Hierarchical Composite Endpoints and the Condorcet Non-transitivity Paradox.

Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift·2026
Same author

Use of statins and its association with major adverse cardiovascular events with tofacitinib vs TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Annals of the rheumatic diseases·2025
Same author

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with and without type 2 diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the DARE-19 randomized trial.

Cardiovascular diabetology·2025
Same author

Preservation of Type I Error for Partially-Unblinded Sample Size Re-Estimation.

Statistics in medicine·2025
Same author

Hierarchical composite outcomes are here to stay, despite the limitations of the win ratio.

European journal of heart failure·2025
Same author

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a prospective meta-analysis of randomised trials.

The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology·2024

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Apr 21, 2026

Heterogeneity Mapping of Protein Expression in Tumors using Quantitative Immunofluorescence
07:54

Heterogeneity Mapping of Protein Expression in Tumors using Quantitative Immunofluorescence

Published on: October 25, 2011

20.3K

Statistical Perspectives on Subgroup Analysis: Testing for Heterogeneity and Evaluating Error Rate for the

Mohamed Alosh1, Mohammad F Huque2, Gary G Koch3

  • 1a Division of Biometrics III , Office of Biostatistics, OTS, CDER, FDA , Silver Spring , Maryland , USA.

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics
|October 22, 2014
PubMed
Summary

Heterogeneity in treatment effects means significant findings may stem from specific subgroups. A nonsignificant interaction test risks incorrect treatment prescription for less-benefitted groups.

Keywords:
Complementary subgroup error rateSupportive assessmentTargeted subgroup, Testing for interaction

More Related Videos

Combined Immunofluorescence and DNA FISH on 3D-preserved Interphase Nuclei to Study Changes in 3D Nuclear Organization
13:55

Combined Immunofluorescence and DNA FISH on 3D-preserved Interphase Nuclei to Study Changes in 3D Nuclear Organization

Published on: February 3, 2013

17.8K
Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers
11:34

Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers

Published on: December 5, 2017

12.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Apr 21, 2026

Heterogeneity Mapping of Protein Expression in Tumors using Quantitative Immunofluorescence
07:54

Heterogeneity Mapping of Protein Expression in Tumors using Quantitative Immunofluorescence

Published on: October 25, 2011

20.3K
Combined Immunofluorescence and DNA FISH on 3D-preserved Interphase Nuclei to Study Changes in 3D Nuclear Organization
13:55

Combined Immunofluorescence and DNA FISH on 3D-preserved Interphase Nuclei to Study Changes in 3D Nuclear Organization

Published on: February 3, 2013

17.8K
Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers
11:34

Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers

Published on: December 5, 2017

12.1K

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trial Design
  • Pharmacovigilance

Background:

  • Substantial heterogeneity in treatment effects across subgroups is common in clinical trials.
  • Significant overall findings may be driven by a specific subgroup, raising concerns about generalizability.
  • Nonsignificant interaction tests can lead to inappropriate treatment decisions for under-benefitted populations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the statistical power of interaction tests in detecting subgroup treatment effects.
  • To evaluate the implications of low power in interaction testing.
  • To assess the probability of prescribing treatments to non-benefitted subgroups based on nonsignificant interaction tests and novel criteria.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of statistical power for interaction tests.
  • Simulation studies to model treatment effect heterogeneity.
  • Evaluation of decision-making criteria following nonsignificant interaction tests.

Main Results:

  • Low power of interaction tests increases the risk of false negatives.
  • Nonsignificant interaction tests may incorrectly suggest uniform treatment effects.
  • The probability of prescribing to non-benefitted subgroups is influenced by test power and proposed criteria.

Conclusions:

  • Clinical trialists must carefully consider the power of interaction tests when interpreting subgroup analyses.
  • Current criteria for treatment prescription may need refinement to account for subgroup heterogeneity.
  • Further research is needed to develop robust methods for subgroup treatment effect evaluation.