BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Jonathan W. Bartlett

Jonathan W. Bartlett contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodology

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

How to interpret hazard ratios

The hazard ratio, typically estimated using Cox's famous proportional hazards model, is the most common effect measure used to describe the association or effect of a covariate on a time-to-event outcome. In recent years the hazard ratio has been argued by some to lack a causal interpretation, even in randomised trials, and even if the proportional hazards assumption holds. This is concerning, not least due to the ubiquity of hazard ratios in analyses of time-to-event data. We review these criticisms, describe how we think hazard ratios should be interpreted, and argue that they retain a valid causal interpretation. Nevertheless, alternative measures may be preferable to describe effects of exposures or treatments on time-to-event outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Standard and reference-based conditional mean imputation

Clinical trials with longitudinal outcomes typically include missing data due to missed assessments or structural missingness of outcomes after intercurrent events handled with a hypothetical strategy. Approaches based on Bayesian random multiple imputation and Rubin's rule for pooling results across multiple imputed datasets are increasingly used in order to align the analysis of these trials with the targeted estimand. We propose and justify deterministic conditional mean imputation combined with the jackknife for inference as an alternative approach. The method is applicable to imputations under a missing-at-random assumption as well as for reference-based imputation approaches. In an application and a simulation study, we demonstrate that it provides consistent treatment effect estimates with the Bayesian approach and reliable frequentist inference with accurate standard error estimation and type I error control. A further advantage of the method is that it does not rely on random sampling and is therefore replicable and unaffected by Monte Carlo error.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2013arXiv

Multiple imputation of covariates by fully conditional specification: accommodating the substantive model

Missing covariate data commonly occur in epidemiological and clinical research, and are often dealt with using multiple imputation (MI). Imputation of partially observed covariates is complicated if the substantive model is non-linear (e.g. Cox proportional hazards model), or contains non-linear (e.g. squared) or interaction terms, and standard software implementations of MI may impute covariates from models that are incompatible with such substantive models. We show how imputation by fully conditional specification, a popular approach for performing MI, can be modified so that covariates are imputed from models which are compatible with the substantive model. We investigate through simulation the performance of this proposal, and compare it to existing approaches. Simulation results suggest our proposal gives consistent estimates for a range of common substantive models, including models which contain non-linear covariate effects or interactions, provided data are missing at random and the assumed imputation models are correctly specified and mutually compatible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access