Hi Jacob, thanks for answer, I appreciate your interest in this discussion... For me the different between RR and HR is clear Hazard ratios differ from relative risk (or risk ratio not relative risk rations) in that risk ratios are cumulative over an entire study (you must use a defined endpoint which is pre-selected during design phase), while hazard ratios represent instantaneous risk at some particular time period during study, or a subset thereof. Hazard ratios suffer somewhat less from selection bias with respect to the endpoints chosen, and can indicate risks that happen before the endpoint. But...still I can see in the literature papers talking about the HR in terms of probabilities, and still I want to understand it, because there not only one paper saying that, i have seen many, maybe we are missing something here: Please can you have a look in these two ones and let me know if they are still wrong considering HR as a probability? This one: What does a 13% increased risk of death mean? | Understanding Uncertainty where the author saying.. An extremely elegant mathematical result, proved here , says that if we assume a hazard ratio h is kept up throughout their lives, the odds that Mike dies before Sam is precisely h. Now odds is defined as p/(1−p), wherep is the chance that Mike dies before Sam. Hence p=h/(1+h)=0.53. and looks like the mathematical prove is shown in this other one: Can we say whether a drug would have enabled someone to live longer? Sadly not. | Understanding Uncertainty Please, can you have a look on these two articles, and let me know what do you think? Thanks, .
... View more