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

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

677
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%...
677
Hazard Ratio01:12

Hazard Ratio

698
The hazard ratio (HR) is a widely used measure in clinical trials to compare the risk of events, such as death or disease recurrence, between two groups over time. It reflects the ratio of hazard rates—the instantaneous risk of the event occurring—between a treatment group and a control group. This measure provides valuable insights into the relative effectiveness of a treatment by assessing how the risk of an event differs between the two groups.
For example, in a clinical trial...
698
Hazard Rate01:11

Hazard Rate

489
The hazard rate, also known as the hazard function or failure rate, is a statistical measure used to describe the instantaneous rate at which an event occurs, given that the event has not yet happened. From a probabilistic perspective, it represents the likelihood that a subject will experience the event in a very small time interval, conditional on surviving up to the beginning of that interval. In terms of frequency, the hazard rate can be viewed as the ratio of the number of events to the...
489
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

113.5K
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. 
113.5K
Margin of Error01:27

Margin of Error

8.0K
The margin of error is also called the maximum error of an estimate. The margin of error is the maximum possible or expected difference between the observed sample parameter value and the actual population parameter value. For proportion, it is the maximum difference between the value of sample proportion obtained from the data and the true value of population proportion. As the true value of the population parameter is not known, the margin of error is calculated using the sample statistic.
8.0K
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

12.0K
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...
12.0K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Likelihood ratios of quantitative diagnostic test results.

Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation·2026
Same author

Interpreting two test results of one analyte from the same individual using bivariate reference values.

Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation·2026
Same author

Divide or subtract: transferrin saturation versus unbound iron binding capacity (UIBC).

Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation·2026
Same author

Sample stability of forty-two analytes in plasma or serum pools after one to four repeated -80 °C freeze-thaw cycles.

Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation·2025
Same author

Combining the calibrator uncertainty and the long-term measurement uncertainty? A comment to the ISO/TS 20914 guideline.

Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine·2025
Same author

Testing MMA<sub>100</sub> - the eGFR-adjusted concentration of methylmalonic acid in plasma.

Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 27, 2026

Expedited Radiation Biodosimetry by Automated Dicentric Chromosome Identification ADCI and Dose Estimation
10:33

Expedited Radiation Biodosimetry by Automated Dicentric Chromosome Identification ADCI and Dose Estimation

Published on: September 4, 2017

16.8K

Using the hazard ratio to evaluate allowable total error in predictive measurands.

Arne Åsberg, Ingrid Hov Odsæter, Gustav Mikkelsen

    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
    |January 12, 2016
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study introduces a new method to determine allowable total error for predictive measurements. It ensures that analytical measurement errors do not significantly impact the accuracy of hazard ratio (HR) predictions.

    More Related Videos

    Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
    06:16

    Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

    Published on: August 9, 2024

    1.0K
    An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
    05:37

    An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

    Published on: September 16, 2022

    2.7K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Mar 27, 2026

    Expedited Radiation Biodosimetry by Automated Dicentric Chromosome Identification ADCI and Dose Estimation
    10:33

    Expedited Radiation Biodosimetry by Automated Dicentric Chromosome Identification ADCI and Dose Estimation

    Published on: September 4, 2017

    16.8K
    Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease
    06:16

    Signal Acquisition, Score Interpretation, and Economics of a Non-Invasive Point-of-Care Test for Coronary Artery Disease

    Published on: August 9, 2024

    1.0K
    An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model
    05:37

    An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

    Published on: September 16, 2022

    2.7K

    Area of Science:

    • Clinical Chemistry
    • Biostatistics
    • Medical Diagnostics

    Background:

    • Allowable total error (ATE) is typically based on biological variation or measurement technology.
    • A novel principle for evaluating ATE is proposed, focusing on predictive consequences for hazard ratio (HR) estimation.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To assess the impact of analytical measurement errors on Cox regression estimates of HR.
    • To establish a universally applicable method for evaluating ATE in predictive measurands.

    Main Methods:

    • Explored the effect of analytical measurement errors on Cox regression HR estimates.
    • Utilized published data on Cox regression coefficients for serum cholesterol, and markers of chronic kidney disease progression.

    Main Results:

    • With a 10% acceptable HR error, ATE for cholesterol, bicarbonate, and phosphate align with biological variation.
    • ATE for albumin and calcium were slightly larger than those based on biological variation.

    Conclusions:

    • Evaluating ATE based on its effect on HR estimation is broadly applicable.
    • This approach provides a robust framework for setting error limits in predictive diagnostics.