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:

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - I

The Bradford Hill criteria are a group of principles that provide a framework to determine a causal relationship between a specific factor and a disease. There are nine criteria that are pivotal in assessing causality in epidemiological studies. Here's a closer look at Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality criteria with definitions and examples:

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

Criteria for Causality: Bradford Hill Criteria - II

The Bradford Hill criteria serve as guidelines for establishing causative links in epidemiological research. Beyond Strength, Consistency, Specificity, and Temporality, key criteria also include Biological Gradient, Plausibility, Coherence, Experiment, and Analogy. These principles assist scientists in assessing the likelihood of causation in complex biological contexts. Below is a summary of these concepts:

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...

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

HPV Self-Collection for Cervical Cancer Screening-There's No Place Like Home.

JAMA internal medicine·2025

Same author

Joint Exposure to Ozone and Temperature and Acute Myocardial Infarction Among Adults Aged 18 to 64 Years in the United States.

Circulation·2025

Same author

Temporal Trends in Opioid Use and Associated Outcomes for Patients Living with Advanced Cancer.

Journal of pain and symptom management·2025

Same author

Concordance between clinical trial data use request proposals and corresponding publications: A cross-sectional study.

Clinical trials (London, England)·2025

Same author

Salary Differences by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity Among Assistant Professors at US Medical Schools.

JAMA network open·2025

Same author

Upholding Our Duty to Care for Undocumented Immigrants.

JAMA internal medicine·2025

Same journal

Closing Diabetes Disparities-Is Technology Access Enough?

JAMA network open·2026

Same journal

Clinician Use of Home-Based Medical Care for Medicaid Beneficiaries.

JAMA network open·2026

Same journal

Cognitive Rehabilitation and Functional Outcomes in Long COVID-Related Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

JAMA network open·2026

Same journal

First-Line Enfortumab Vedotin Plus Pembrolizumab vs Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

JAMA network open·2026

Same journal

Breast Cancer Survival in Asian American Patients.

JAMA network open·2026

Same journal

Social Determinants of Health and Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics in Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes.

JAMA network open·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 21, 2026

$Multifractal Spectrum Analysis for Assessing Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy$

Multifractal Spectrum Analysis for Assessing Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy

Published on: January 10, 2025

County-Level Structural Racism Indices and Racial Disparities in Lung Cancer Care.

Jacquelyne J Gaddy^1,2, Do H Lee^1,2, Jeph Herrin^1,2

¹Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale Cancer, Center, New Haven, Connecticut.

JAMA Network Open

|May 20, 2026

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Structural racism in counties was linked to worse non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) outcomes for White patients but not Black patients. This highlights the need to address structural racism to reduce cancer care disparities.

More Related Videos

Multidimensional Coculture System to Model Lung Squamous Carcinoma Progression

Multidimensional Coculture System to Model Lung Squamous Carcinoma Progression

Published on: March 17, 2020

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 21, 2026

$Multifractal Spectrum Analysis for Assessing Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy$

Multifractal Spectrum Analysis for Assessing Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy

Published on: January 10, 2025

Multidimensional Coculture System to Model Lung Squamous Carcinoma Progression

Multidimensional Coculture System to Model Lung Squamous Carcinoma Progression

Published on: March 17, 2020

Area of Science:

Public Health
Health Disparities
Oncology

Background:

Racial disparities persist in lung cancer care and outcomes.
The impact of structural racism on these disparities is not well understood.

Purpose of the Study:

To examine the association between structural racism measures and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care and outcomes.
To determine if this association differs by patient race (Black vs. White).

Main Methods:

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with NSCLC (2013-2019).
Used county-level structural racism measures (Structural Racism Effect Index, County Structural Racism).
Assessed associations with localized stage at diagnosis, stage-appropriate treatment, and 2-year survival using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression.

Main Results:

Higher structural racism (dissimilarity index) was associated with lower mortality in White patients but not Black patients.
Black patients had lower rates of localized diagnosis, stage-appropriate treatment, and 2-year survival compared to White patients.
Racial disparities in 2-year survival widened in areas with higher structural racism.

Conclusions:

Structural racism is associated with differential impacts on lung cancer outcomes based on race.
Quantifying structural racism can identify targets for improving cancer care quality and mitigating disparities.