this seems like more of an explanation about the relative risk, Calculating HR with only 1 axial increment (time in this example) will lead to same conclusion. But the nuance of the hazard ratio for the learner to grasp early is the hazard ratio explains the risk of event at any given time increment throughout the study and has a much more complicated equation when including data from multiple increments and also adjusting for covariates.

Excellent

Thank you so much!
I can easily understand after watching your topic

Great explanation thanks
👏

Thank you  I understand it immediately

Very good explanation 👍

Guided by the interpretation that if Hazard ratio <1, there is lower risk of event in the group with lower Hazard rate (and vice versa if Hazard ratio >1), then I think that the less confusing interpretation for the final example where HR=0.5 (at time stamp 17:06/17:26), would be, there are 50% less hazard (of death) in the treatment group (the group with lower hazard rate), than the control group. Thank you for your demonstration!  <3 Appreciate it!

Thanks a lot! 👌

Very well explained, thank you💙

Great explanation and demonstration to drive home the HR. Thanks

in the example, why did you label it as a hazard rate (or ratio) and not incidence rate (or ratio)?

hello sir
as per your equation , how is hazard ratio different from risk ratio ??
and i came across an equation ie
hazard ratio = no of events in group A /no of expected deaths in group A/ no of deaths in group B / no of expected deaths in group B
please explain this if possible

Results

Individuals with ADHD had an increased risk for dementia and MCI. After adjusting for sex and birth year, a hazard ratio (HR) was 2.92 (95% confidence interval 2.40–3.57) for dementia,

Can you please explain that to me In a very simple words since my English is not good please

Can we use HR for other events other than death. For example for comparison of occurrence of complications between two groups ?

Is great but the writing takes too long thank u