Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608267›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2025

Revisiting the hazards of hazard ratios through simulations and case studies.

Michal Abrahamowicz, Marie-Eve Beauchamp, Emily K Roberts, Jeremy M G Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michal AbrahamowiczDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. michal.abrahamowicz@mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3172-3952
Marie-Eve BeauchampCentre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9488-0157
Emily K RobertsDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5838-9691
Jeremy M G TaylorDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. jmgt@umich.edu.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Alexey I Nesvizhskii · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
CIHR PJT-180634NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592NIH HHS CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hazard has been a central concept in the analysis and interpretation of time-to-event data for over 50 years. At any follow-up time, the hazard is the probability of the event happening in the next unit of time amongst those still at risk. Hazard ratios (HRs) between groups are frequently used to quantify the exposure/treatment's association with the failure time. In a highly cited paper, Hernán criticized HRs, asserting that their decreases over time may reflect simply a built-in selection bias, induced by an unmeasured susceptibility, and should not be interpreted as genuine changes in treatment effect. Hernán supports his arguments mainly by the results of a hormone therapy trial, where the HR for coronary heart events decreased largely during follow-up, with hazards crossing from harmful to protective treatment effect. However, he did not present simulations or algebraic derivations to demonstrate that these changes may reflect just an unmeasured susceptibility. We use simulations and real-world case studies to systematically explore this issue. The first simulation series reveals how the underestimation bias and changes over time in Cox proportional hazards model-based HRs depend on the joint impact of susceptibility on the hazard, its distribution, and the incidence of events; with important bias toward the null occurring only for a very strong susceptibility. Further simulations mimic the hormone therapy trial highlighted by Hernán, to demonstrate that the reported bias and crossing hazards are extremely unlikely to reflect just an unmeasured susceptibility, which suggests some biological reasons for decaying treatment HR, possibly including decreasing treatment adherence. Finally, we present real-world examples of interpretable and clinically plausible time-dependent HRs in cancer research. In conclusion, results of our simulations and real-world case studies suggest that concerns about HR limitations may be overstated, and we encourage researchers to model time-dependent HRs and consider potential biological and clinical causes thereof.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationDisease SusceptibilityProportional Hazards ModelsBiasHumansBuilt-in selection biasCox modelDepletion of susceptibleFrailtyProportional hazardsTime-dependent effects

Identifiers

PMID40608267
PMCPMC12263769

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.