Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data

Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data

Epidemiological data primarily involves information on specific populations' occurrence, distribution, and determinants of health and diseases. This data is crucial for understanding disease patterns and impacts, aiding public health decision-making and disease prevention strategies. The analysis of epidemiological data employs various statistical methods to interpret health-related data effectively. Here are some commonly used methods:

Cancer Survival Analysis

Cancer Survival Analysis

Cancer survival analysis focuses on quantifying and interpreting the time from a key starting point, such as diagnosis or the initiation of treatment, to a specific endpoint, such as remission or death. This analysis provides critical insights into treatment effectiveness and factors that influence patient outcomes, helping to shape clinical decisions and guide prognostic evaluations. A cornerstone of oncology research, survival analysis tackles the challenges of skewed, non-normally...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by

Same author

Metabolic determinants of cancer immunotherapy outcomes identified by plasma profiling.

Nature medicine·2026

Same author

Mapping the contributions of adjuvant tamoxifen, 20 years later.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute·2026

Same author

Transitions in ENDS and cigarette use among youth in the PATH Study from 2015-2023: a multistate transition modeling analysis.

medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences·2026

Same author

Air pollution and the risk of second primary lung cancer among lung cancer survivors: the prospective UK Biobank cohort study.

British journal of cancer·2026

Same author

Provider Follow-Up and Adherence to Imaging Surveillance Recommendations for Lung Cancer Survivors in a Nationwide Health Care System.

JCO oncology practice·2026

Same author

Results of a phase 1 trial testing ruxolitinib plus venetoclax in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

Blood neoplasia·2026

Same journal

Correction to I.M. Matters News: Sleep medicine for seniors.

Annals of internal medicine·2026

Same journal

Adverse Events After Same-Day COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccination Versus Influenza Vaccination Alone : A Target Trial Emulation.

Annals of internal medicine·2026

Same journal

Leveraging Real-World Evidence to Inform Regulatory, Clinical, and Coverage Decisions Related to Glucagon-Like Peptide-1-Based Therapies: Synopsis of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

Annals of internal medicine·2026

Same journal

Methodological Approaches to Real-World Evidence Generation for Glucagon-like Peptide-1-Based Therapies: Synopsis of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

Annals of internal medicine·2026

Same journal

Weekly and Biweekly Treatment With Bofanglutide Versus Semaglutide in Chinese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes : A Phase 2b Randomized Clinical Trial.

Annals of internal medicine·2026

Same journal

Grappling with GLP-1 prescribing.

Annals of internal medicine·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 11, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

Risk Model-Based Lung Cancer Screening : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Iakovos Toumazis¹, Pianpian Cao², Koen de Nijs³

¹Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (I.T., M.H.).

Annals of Internal Medicine

|February 6, 2023

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Risk-based lung cancer screening is more cost-effective than current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. These strategies offer better value, warranting further consideration for lung cancer screening protocols.

More Related Videos

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

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

Published on: August 9, 2024

Using Micro-computed Tomography for the Assessment of Tumor Development and Follow-up of Response to Treatment in a Mouse Model of Lung Cancer

Using Micro-computed Tomography for the Assessment of Tumor Development and Follow-up of Response to Treatment in a Mouse Model of Lung Cancer

Published on: May 20, 2016

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Aug 11, 2025

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

An R-Based Landscape Validation of a Competing Risk Model

Published on: September 16, 2022

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

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

Published on: August 9, 2024

Using Micro-computed Tomography for the Assessment of Tumor Development and Follow-up of Response to Treatment in a Mouse Model of Lung Cancer

Using Micro-computed Tomography for the Assessment of Tumor Development and Follow-up of Response to Treatment in a Mouse Model of Lung Cancer

Published on: May 20, 2016

Area of Science:

Pulmonary Medicine
Health Economics
Preventive Oncology

Background:

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated lung cancer screening recommendations in 2021, emphasizing risk model-based strategies.
Further research is needed on the benefits and harms of personalized risk assessment for lung cancer screening.

Purpose of the Study:

To compare the cost-effectiveness of risk model-based lung cancer screening with the current USPSTF recommendation.
To identify optimal risk thresholds for implementing risk model-based screening.

Main Methods:

A comparative modeling analysis was conducted using data from the National Lung Screening Trial and other sources.
Simulations evaluated annual low-dose computed tomography screening strategies for a U.S. birth cohort from age 50/55 to 80.
Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier.

Main Results:

Risk model-based screening strategies demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness compared to the USPSTF recommendation.
Strategies with a 6-year risk threshold of 1.2% or higher were cost-effective, with an ICER below $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
A 1.2% risk threshold strategy yielded more QALYs at a lower cost than the USPSTF recommendation, with comparable screening coverage.

Conclusions:

Risk model-based lung cancer screening is more cost-effective than the current USPSTF recommendation.
These findings support the consideration of risk model-based approaches for lung cancer screening.
Personalized risk assessment offers a more efficient strategy for lung cancer screening.