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

7.6K
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...
7.6K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

490
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%...
490
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

299
Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
299
Margin of Error01:27

Margin of Error

6.6K
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.
6.6K
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies01:27

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

447
Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This...
447
Testing a Claim about Population Proportion01:24

Testing a Claim about Population Proportion

3.7K
A complete procedure for testing a claim about a population proportion is provided here.
There are two methods of testing a claim about a population proportion: (1) Using the sample proportion from the data where a binomial distribution is approximated to the normal distribution and (2) Using the binomial probabilities calculated from the data.
The first method uses normal distribution as an approximation to the binomial distribution. The requirements are as follows: sample size is large...
3.7K

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by
Same author

Association of standardized serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D with falls in post-menopausal women.

Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA·2024
Same author

Consensus Statement on Vitamin D Status Assessment and Supplementation: Whys, Whens, and Hows.

Endocrine reviews·2024
Same author

Determination of 24,25-dihydroxyvitamin D<sub>3</sub> in Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme samples using a reference measurement procedure.

The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology·2023
Same author

Serum 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels in the diagnosis and pathogenesis of nutritional rickets - a multivariable re-analysis of a case-control study.

The American journal of clinical nutrition·2023
Same author

Towards harmonization of directly measured free 25-hydroxyvitamin D using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry·2022
Same author

Intra-trial Mean 25(OH)D and PTH Levels and Risk of Falling in Older Men and Women in the Boston STOP IT Trial.

The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism·2022

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 11, 2025

Swabbing the Urban Environment - A Pipeline for Sampling and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Environmental Reservoirs
07:13

Swabbing the Urban Environment - A Pipeline for Sampling and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Environmental Reservoirs

Published on: April 9, 2021

4.5K

Adjusting Coronavirus Prevalence Estimates for Laboratory Test Kit Error.

Christopher T Sempos, Lu Tian

    American Journal of Epidemiology
    |August 18, 2020
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Accurate COVID-19 prevalence estimates are crucial for policy decisions. This study presents methods to adjust for imperfect testing accuracy, ensuring reliable data even with low infection rates.

    Keywords:
    COVID-19SARS-Cov-2Vitamin D Standardization Programcoronaviruscross-sectional studyfalse-positive rateprevalencescreeningsensitivityseroprevalencespecificity

    More Related Videos

    Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Testing Utilizing Saliva and Transposition Sample Pooling
    08:26

    Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Testing Utilizing Saliva and Transposition Sample Pooling

    Published on: June 23, 2022

    1.9K
    Author Spotlight: Advancing Pathogen Diagnostics with Standardized LAMP
    05:34

    Author Spotlight: Advancing Pathogen Diagnostics with Standardized LAMP

    Published on: September 8, 2023

    1.1K

    Related Experiment Videos

    Last Updated: Dec 11, 2025

    Swabbing the Urban Environment - A Pipeline for Sampling and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Environmental Reservoirs
    07:13

    Swabbing the Urban Environment - A Pipeline for Sampling and Detection of SARS-CoV-2 From Environmental Reservoirs

    Published on: April 9, 2021

    4.5K
    Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Testing Utilizing Saliva and Transposition Sample Pooling
    08:26

    Large-Scale SARS-CoV-2 Testing Utilizing Saliva and Transposition Sample Pooling

    Published on: June 23, 2022

    1.9K
    Author Spotlight: Advancing Pathogen Diagnostics with Standardized LAMP
    05:34

    Author Spotlight: Advancing Pathogen Diagnostics with Standardized LAMP

    Published on: September 8, 2023

    1.1K

    Area of Science:

    • Epidemiology
    • Biostatistics
    • Public Health

    Background:

    • Accurate prevalence estimation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is vital for informing public policy regarding restrictions.
    • Laboratory test performance is imperfect, with sensitivity and specificity often below 100%, leading to biased prevalence estimates.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To introduce methods for adjusting prevalence estimates to account for testing errors.
    • To provide guidance for prospective and retrospective study designs to improve accuracy.

    Main Methods:

    • The study outlines statistical approaches to correct for false positives and false negatives in diagnostic testing.
    • Methods are applicable to both planned research and analyses of previously collected data.

    Main Results:

    • Testing errors can significantly bias prevalence estimates, especially when true prevalence is low (1%-5%).
    • Adjusted estimates provide a more accurate reflection of the true population prevalence.

    Conclusions:

    • Adjusting prevalence estimates for testing error is essential for reliable public health decision-making.
    • These methods can harmonize study results globally and lead to better policy outcomes.
    • Individual test accuracy is not improved by this adjustment method.