Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Mendelian randomization (MR) is an established approach for assessing the causal effects of heritable exposures on outcomes. Outcomes of interest often include binary clinical endpoints, but may also include censored survival times. We explore the implications of both the Cox proportional hazard model and the additive hazard model in the context of MR, with a specific emphasis on two-stage methods. We show that naive application of standard MR approaches to censored survival times may induce significant bias. Through simulations and analysis of data from the Women's Health Initiative, we provide practical advice on modeling survival outcomes in MRs.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gepi.22354 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!