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

Hazard Rate01:11

Hazard Rate

437
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...
437
Hazard Ratio01:12

Hazard Ratio

609
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...
609
What are Estimates?01:06

What are Estimates?

8.8K
It isn't easy to measure a parameter such as the mean height or the mean weight of a population. So, we draw samples from the population and calculate the mean height or mean weight of the individuals in the sample. This sample data acts as a representative measure of the population parameter. These sample statistics are known as estimates. 
The estimate for the mean of a sample is denoted by ͞x, whereas the mean of the population is designated as μ. Further, parameters such...
8.8K
Electric Potential and Potential Difference01:16

Electric Potential and Potential Difference

5.7K
Suppose a positive test charge moves away from a positive static charge, then the Coulomb force does positive work, and its electric potential energy decreases. The potential energy per unit charge is defined as the electric potential. The electric potential is independent of the test charge.
When a test charge moves from the initial to the final position, the electric potential difference between those positions is defined as the ratio of the change in the potential energy to the charge on the...
5.7K
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

8.4K
The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
8.4K
Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test01:14

Identifying Statistically Significant Differences: The F-Test

3.8K
The F-test is used to compare two sample variances to each other or compare the sample variance to the population variance. It is used to decide whether an indeterminate error can explain the difference in their values. The underlying assumptions that allow the use of the F-test include the data set or sets are normally distributed, and the data sets are independent of each other. The test statistic F is calculated by dividing one variance by another. In other words, the square of one standard...
3.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Instrumental Variable Estimation of Marginal Structural Mean Models for Time-Varying Treatment.

Journal of the American Statistical Association·2026
Same author

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

Biometrics·2026
Same author

Finding distributions that differ, with false discovery rate control.

Biometrika·2026
Same author

Nonparametric Estimation of the Patient-Weighted While-Alive Estimand.

Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift·2026
Same author

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

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)·2026
Same author

Discussion on ''Nonparanormal Adjusted Marginal Inference'' by Susanne Dandl and Torsten Hothorn.

Biometrics·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 6, 2026

Blue-hazard-free Candlelight OLED
10:18

Blue-hazard-free Candlelight OLED

Published on: March 19, 2017

9.9K

On doubly robust estimation of the hazard difference.

Oliver Dukes1, Torben Martinussen2, Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen3

  • 1Department of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 S9, Ghent 9000, Belgium.

Biometrics
|August 23, 2018
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Estimating treatment effects with survival outcomes is challenging due to covariate bias. This study introduces novel doubly robust semiparametric additive hazards models for more accurate hazard difference estimation.

Keywords:
Additive hazards modelCausal inferenceDoubly robust estimationLifetime and survival analysisSemiparametric inference

More Related Videos

Differential Imaging of Biological Structures with Doubly-resonant Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Scattering CARS
12:56

Differential Imaging of Biological Structures with Doubly-resonant Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Scattering CARS

Published on: October 17, 2010

14.1K
Rendering SiO2/Si Surfaces Omniphobic by Carving Gas-Entrapping Microtextures Comprising Reentrant and Doubly Reentrant Cavities or Pillars
08:02

Rendering SiO2/Si Surfaces Omniphobic by Carving Gas-Entrapping Microtextures Comprising Reentrant and Doubly Reentrant Cavities or Pillars

Published on: February 11, 2020

9.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 6, 2026

Blue-hazard-free Candlelight OLED
10:18

Blue-hazard-free Candlelight OLED

Published on: March 19, 2017

9.9K
Differential Imaging of Biological Structures with Doubly-resonant Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Scattering CARS
12:56

Differential Imaging of Biological Structures with Doubly-resonant Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Scattering CARS

Published on: October 17, 2010

14.1K
Rendering SiO2/Si Surfaces Omniphobic by Carving Gas-Entrapping Microtextures Comprising Reentrant and Doubly Reentrant Cavities or Pillars
08:02

Rendering SiO2/Si Surfaces Omniphobic by Carving Gas-Entrapping Microtextures Comprising Reentrant and Doubly Reentrant Cavities or Pillars

Published on: February 11, 2020

9.4K

Area of Science:

  • Biostatistics
  • Epidemiology
  • Survival Analysis

Background:

  • Estimating conditional treatment effects in observational studies with survival outcomes often relies on hazards regression models.
  • High-dimensional covariates can lead to bias if their effects are misspecified, particularly when inferring hazard differences.
  • Standard additive hazards models struggle to ensure non-negative hazards across the covariate range.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose novel semiparametric additive hazards models for estimating conditional treatment effects.
  • To develop doubly robust estimation approaches for the hazard difference and relative chance of survival.
  • To address limitations in standard methods caused by covariate misspecification.

Main Methods:

  • Derivation of the efficient score under a novel class of semiparametric additive hazards models.
  • Proposal of two distinct doubly robust estimation methods for the hazard difference.
  • Utilizing simulation studies and real-world data (SUPPORT study) for validation.

Main Results:

  • The proposed methods yield doubly robust estimators for the hazard difference.
  • Demonstrated improved accuracy in estimating treatment effects compared to standard approaches.
  • The models accommodate unspecified covariate effects, enhancing robustness.

Conclusions:

  • The novel semiparametric additive hazards models offer a robust framework for estimating conditional treatment effects in observational survival studies.
  • Doubly robust estimation is crucial for mitigating bias from covariate misspecification.
  • These methods improve the reliability of survival outcome analyses in complex datasets.