{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015714285714285715, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.258928571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analysing multicentre competing risks data with a mixed proportional hazards model for the subdistribution

In the competing‐risks setting, to test the effect of a covariate on the probability of one particular cause of failure, the Fine and Gray model for the subdistribution hazard can be used. However, sometimes, competing risks data cannot be considered as independent because of a clustered design, for instance in registry cohorts or multicentre clinical trials. Frailty models have been shown useful to analyse such clustered data in a classical survival setting, where only one risk acts on the population. Inclusion of random effects in the subdistribution hazard has not been assessed yet.