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 Experiment Videos

Induction and latent periods

K J Rothman

    American Journal of Epidemiology
    |August 1, 1981
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Understanding disease timing is crucial. The induction period (action to initiation) and latent period (initiation to detection) differ, and incorrect assumptions about their combined length cause bias in studies.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

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

    Sort by
    Same author

    Preconception sleep duration, non-daytime work schedules, and incidence of spontaneous abortion: a prospective cohort study.

    Human reproduction (Oxford, England)·2023
    Same author

    Self-reported periodontitis and fecundability in a population of pregnancy planners.

    Human reproduction (Oxford, England)·2021
    Same author

    Male cellular telephone exposure, fecundability, and semen quality: results from two preconception cohort studies.

    Human reproduction (Oxford, England)·2021
    Same author

    Male alcohol consumption and fecundability.

    Human reproduction (Oxford, England)·2020
    Same author

    Lubricant use during intercourse and time to pregnancy: a prospective cohort study.

    BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology·2018
    Same author

    Cohort study of malignancies and hospitalized infectious events in treated and untreated patients with psoriasis and a general population in the United States.

    The British journal of dermatology·2015
    Same journal

    A decision-theoretic framework for uncertainty quantification in epidemiological modelling.

    American journal of epidemiology·2026
    Same journal

    U.S. cardiovascular mortality before and during COVID-19: CDC WONDER vs GBD comparison.

    American journal of epidemiology·2026
    Same journal

    Design and procedures for the greenness, cognitive performance and vascular outcomes in the northern Manhattan study (NOMAS-greenness).

    American journal of epidemiology·2026
    Same journal

    Correction to: Home dampness and molds and occurrence of respiratory tract infections in the first 27 years of life: the Espoo Cohort Study.

    American journal of epidemiology·2026
    Same journal

    A SIMPLE AND POWERFUL TEST OF VACCINE WANING.

    American journal of epidemiology·2026
    Same journal

    Association Between maternal body mass index, offspring growth and pubertal timing: results from a longitudinal birth cohort study.

    American journal of epidemiology·2026
    See all related articles

    Area of Science:

    • Epidemiology
    • Biostatistics
    • Public Health

    Background:

    • Distinguishing between induction and latent periods is essential for accurate disease analysis.
    • The induction period spans from causal action to disease initiation.
    • The latent period covers the time from disease initiation to detection.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To clarify the distinct concepts of induction and latent periods in disease development.
    • To address the impact of assumptions regarding the combined "empirical induction period" on analytical studies.
    • To propose methods for mitigating bias caused by misclassification of these periods.

    Main Methods:

    • Conceptual differentiation of induction and latent periods.
    • Analysis of bias resulting from incorrect assumptions about the empirical induction period.

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Application of repeated analyses with varied assumptions to minimize misclassification.

    • Main Results:

    • A disease's induction period length is relative to its specific etiologic component.
    • Inappropriate assumptions about the empirical induction period lead to nondifferential misclassification and bias toward the null.
    • Repeated analyses can yield undiluted measures of effect and identify the mode of the empirical induction period.

    Conclusions:

    • Accurate distinction between induction and latent periods is vital for valid epidemiological research.
    • Methodological adjustments, such as repeated analyses, can correct for bias introduced by misclassified induction-latent periods.
    • This approach allows for more precise estimation of disease effects and understanding of disease progression timelines.