When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Hazard ratio - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_ratio

    The relationship between treatment effect and the hazard ratio is given as . A statistically important, but practically insignificant effect can produce a large hazard ratio, e.g. a treatment increasing the number of one-year survivors in a population from one in 10,000 to one in 1,000 has a hazard ratio of 10.

  3. Number needed to harm - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_harm

    It is defined as the inverse of the absolute risk increase, and computed as / (), where is the incidence in the treated (exposed) group, and is the incidence in the control (unexposed) group. [1] Intuitively, the lower the number needed to harm, the worse the risk factor, with 1 meaning that every exposed person is harmed.

  4. Risk factor - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_factor

    Hazard ratio, such as "an increase in both total and invasive breast cancers in women randomized to receive estrogen and progestin for an average of 5 years, with a hazard ratio of 1.24 compared to controls." [10]

  5. Survival analysis - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_analysis

    The summary output also gives upper and lower 95% confidence intervals for the hazard ratio: lower 95% bound = 1.15; upper 95% bound = 3.26. Finally, the output gives p-values for three alternative tests for overall significance of the model:

  6. Proportional hazards model - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_hazards_model

    The hazard ratio is the quantity ⁡ (), which is ⁡ = in the above example. From the last calculation above, an interpretation of this is as the ratio of hazards between two "subjects" that have their variables differ by one unit: if P i = P j + 1 {\displaystyle P_{i}=P_{j}+1} , then exp ⁡ ( β 1 ( P i − P j ) = exp ⁡ ( β 1 ( 1 ...

  7. Number needed to treat - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat

    The absolute risk reduction (ARR), however, was much smaller, because the study group did not have a very high rate of cardiovascular events over the study period: 2.67% in the control group, compared to 1.65% in the treatment group. [15] Taking atorvastatin for 3.3 years, therefore, would lead to an ARR of only 1.02% (2.67% minus 1.65%).

  8. Get breaking Finance news and the latest business articles from AOL. From stock market news to jobs and real estate, it can all be found here.

  9. Discrete-time proportional hazards - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete-time_proportional...

    This maximum likelihood maximization depends on the specification of the baseline hazard functions. These specifications include fully parametric models, piece-wise-constant proportional hazard models, or partial likelihood approaches that estimate the baseline hazard as a nuisance function. [4]