Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Selection bias has long been central in methodological discussions across epidemiology and other fields. In epidemiology, the concept of selection bias has been continually evolving over time. In this issue of American Journal of Epidemiology, Mathur and Shpitser (Am J Epidemiol. 2025;194(1):267-277) present simple graphical rules for assessing the presence of selection bias when estimating causal effects by using a single-world intervention graph (SWIG). Their work is particularly insightful as it addresses the scenarios where treatment affects sample selection-a topic that has been underexplored in previous literature on selection bias. To contextualize the work by Mathur and Shpitser, we trace the evolution of the concept of selection bias in epidemiology, focusing primarily on the developments in the last 20-30 years following the adoption of causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) in epidemiologic research.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11879605 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae282 | DOI Listing |