Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Covariate-adjusted win statistics in randomized clinical trials with ordinal outcomes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Covariate-adjusted win statistics keep consistency and never increase asymptotic variance.

desk verdict A substantive extension of covariate-adjusted win statistics to ordinal RCT outcomes, with a plausible variance-reduction theorem; needs the web-appendix proofs made visible and the finite-sample variance caveats taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20349 v2 pith:P3J722VJ submitted 2025-08-28 stat.ME

Zhiqiang Cao , Scott Zuo , Mary Ryan Baumann , Kendra Plourde , Patrick Heagerty , Guangyu Tong , Fan Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62G2062P10
keywords ordinaloutcomeswinratiodifferencecovariateadjustmentpropensityscoreweightingoverlapaugmentedU-statistics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Randomized trials with ordinal outcomes often report win ratios or win differences: pairwise comparisons of whether a treated patient beats a control patient. This paper claims that these estimands can be covariate-adjusted with inverse probability weighting, overlap weighting, or their augmented versions without sacrificing consistency, and that the adjusted estimators have asymptotic variance no larger than the unadjusted one. The carrying argument is an influence-function decomposition: each adjusted estimator's influence function is the unadjusted influence function minus its projection onto the propensity-score tangent space. If correct, the result gives trialists a formal reason to use prespecified baseline covariates for win statistics, together with closed-form variance formulas that avoid resampling. The paper also shows in simulations and in a completed COVID-19 hydroxychloroquine trial that adjustment can cut standard errors by roughly a third.

What carries the argument

The central object is the win estimand $\tau_1=P\{Y_i(1)>Y_j(0)\}$, the probability that a randomly chosen treated outcome beats a randomly chosen control outcome, alongside its loss counterpart and their ratio and difference. The machinery is the U-statistic representation of weighted pairwise comparisons: an estimator is a normalized sum over treatment–control pairs of a symmetric kernel that records which patient wins, with weights determined by the fitted propensity score. The load-bearing identity is Theorem 1(b): for any balancing-weight estimator, the influence function is the unadjusted influence function minus its projection on the tangent space of the propensity model, which is exactly what makes the adjusted asymptotic variance no larger. Closed-form variance estimates follow from taking the sample second moment of the estimated influence function, so inference does not require resampling.

What would settle it

Simulate a randomized trial with treatment probability $\pi=0.5$, a strong prognostic covariate, and a logistic propensity model that omits the intercept so it cannot represent $\pi$; if the IPW or OW win-ratio estimator shows bias that persists as $n$ grows to 10,000, the claimed model-robust consistency is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the class of balancing-weight win estimators shares one influence-function structure: a normalized weighted comparison of every treatment–control pair, with weights built from a fitted propensity score. Under randomization, the weighted estimand reduces to the unadjusted win estimand whenever the propensity model can represent the constant treatment probability. The paper's Theorem 1 then shows the influence function of any such estimator equals the unadjusted influence function minus its projection on the propensity-score tangent space, so the asymptotic variance is no larger. Theorem 2 shows that adding an ordinal outcome regression through augmented weighting keeps consistency even when that regression is misspecified, and achieves local efficiency when it is correct. The win ratio and win difference inherit these properties by the delta method.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted treatment-assignment model can represent the true constant randomization probability; if it cannot, the weighted estimator targets a different quantity and the consistency claim does not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Covariate adjustment for win ratio and win difference can be prespecified in a trial protocol with a guarantee of no asymptotic precision loss relative to the unadjusted analysis.
  • Analysts can report confidence intervals from closed-form variance estimators rather than bootstrap resampling.
  • Augmented weighting estimators provide an additional efficiency gain in most simulation settings, and remain consistent when the outcome regression is misspecified.
  • Overlap weighting is the recommended default when sample sizes are small or randomization is unbalanced, because it tends to be at least as efficient as IPW and avoids extreme weights.
  • The ORCHID reanalysis illustrates that adjustment can reduce standard errors by about 30–40% while leaving the clinical conclusion unchanged.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the variance-reduction argument only uses the structure of pairwise comparisons and a propensity tangent space, the same projection identity should extend to time-to-event win ratios and to other pairwise estimands such as net benefit with ties handled explicitly.
  • Editorial inference: the model robustness result is asymmetric: it protects against misspecifying the outcome model, not the propensity model, so in practice the propensity model must include an intercept or otherwise be able to represent the constant randomization probability.
  • Editorial inference: the simulations show variance estimates falling below Monte Carlo variance when the augmented outcome model has many parameters at n around 200, so small-sample corrections or sample-splitting are a natural next test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops covariate-adjusted estimators for win statistics (win ratio and win difference) with ordinal outcomes in randomized clinical trials. The authors propose inverse probability weighting (IPW), overlap weighting (OW), and their augmented versions (AIPW, AOW), building on U-statistic theory. They state two central theoretical results: (i) the influence function of any balancing-weighting estimator equals the unadjusted estimator's influence function minus its projection onto the propensity-score tangent space, implying no larger asymptotic variance; and (ii) all estimators are consistent for the target estimand even when working models are misspecified, i.e., model-robust. The paper provides closed-form variance estimators, simulation studies, an application to the ORCHID trial, and an R package.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper fills a gap by formally extending covariate adjustment for average treatment effects to pairwise win estimands, with a clean influence-function projection argument and practical software. The simulation study is broad and the GitHub code enables reproducibility. However, the central model-robustness claim is overstated: for IPW and OW, consistency to the unadjusted win estimand requires the propensity model to be able to represent the constant propensity, a condition not stated in the abstract or theorems. The variance-reduction claim likewise relies on correct specification of the propensity model. These issues affect the paper's central message and need to be addressed with explicit conditions or revised claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section 3.2, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5); Section 7] The abstract claims that 'all of the covariate-adjusted estimators do not compromise consistency for the target estimand even when the associated working models are incorrectly specified.' This is not correct for the IPW estimator (3.4) and the OW estimator (3.5) unless the propensity-score model family contains the constant propensity. Under randomization the true propensity is a constant π; consistency to τ1 requires the estimated propensity score to converge to π so that the weights become constants. If the working model cannot represent a constant (e.g., a logistic model without an intercept when π≠0.5), the estimated weights converge to a nonconstant function and the estimator targets a different weighted estimand. Theorem 1 does not state this condition, and the proof in Web Appendix B is not available to verify. Please add the required assumption or qualify the model-robustness claim to apply only to outcome-model misspecification and to propensity models that contain the constant.
  2. [Section 3.3, Theorem 1(b); Section 7] The statement that the influence function φ(O) equals χh(O) minus its projection on the tangent space of the propensity model, and the consequent conclusion that 'the asymptotic variance of the propensity score weighting estimators is no larger than that of the unadjusted estimator,' presuppose that the propensity model is correctly specified (or at least that the probability limit of the estimated propensity is the true constant). If the model is misspecified, the projection is not an orthogonal projection in the sense needed for the variance decomposition, and the variance-reduction claim is not established. The theorem and the discussion should explicitly state this condition.
  3. [Section 3.3 (Theorem 1) and Section 4.3 (Theorem 2)] The proofs of Theorems 1 and 2 are stated to be in Web Appendices B and D, but these appendices are not included in the submitted manuscript. Because these theorems are load-bearing for the paper's central claims of consistency, variance reduction, and local efficiency, the full proofs must be provided to the reviewers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1] The word 'recommendped' in the paragraph about regulatory guidance should be 'recommended'.
  2. [Section 3.3] The phrase 'to obtain consistant variance estimators' contains a typo: 'consistant' should be 'consistent'. Similarly, Section 3.4 has 'asymtoptic' which should be 'asymptotic'.
  3. [Section 7] The final paragraph contains a sentence fragment: 'Our work thus illustrates the operational steps involved in estimating win estimands with covariate adjustment. tics as well as the una djusted win statistics in the winPSW R package...' This appears to be a corruption and should be rewritten.
  4. [Section 3.1] The statement 'under randomization, τ h 1 = τ1 as long as h(Xi,X j) is at most a function of covariates only through the propensity score' is potentially confusing because the true propensity score is constant under randomization; a nonconstant function of covariates is not a function of the propensity score. Please clarify what is intended.
  5. [General] The references to supporting material are inconsistent: the text mentions 'Web Appendix A-D' and 'Web Appendices A–E'. Please standardize.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the variance-reduction claim follows from an influence-function projection identity, and self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. Win estimands are defined independently in Section 2.1, and the unadjusted U-statistic estimator follows Bebu and Lachin (2016). The covariate-adjusted estimators in Section 3 are weighted versions of the same pairwise kernel. Theorem 1(a) obtains the influence function from U-statistic theory, and Theorem 1(b) is the semiparametric identity that a balancing-weighting estimator's influence function equals the unadjusted influence function minus its projection on the propensity-score tangent space. The variance inequality then follows from the orthogonality of that projection, not from fitting or renaming the target. Theorem 2's double robustness and local efficiency for the augmented estimators is standard semiparametric theory, and the simulation section validates the estimators against independently computed Monte Carlo truth, so the empirical results are not fitted to the target. The paper cites the authors' own prior work (e.g., Zeng et al. 2021, Li et al. 2018, Cao et al. 2025), but these citations are motivational and contextual; no load-bearing theorem or variance-reduction claim reduces to those citations, and the proofs are supplied in the paper or in standard external references such as Tsiatis (2006) and Mao (2018). One precision caveat is worth noting but is not circularity: the abstract's blanket 'model-robust' wording for IPW/OW implicitly assumes the propensity model family can represent the constant propensity (e.g., a logistic model with an intercept). If the model family cannot represent the constant, the weights do not collapse to constants and the estimator targets a different weighted estimand; this is a model-specification and correctness caveat, not a circular dependence of the derivation on its own outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The estimators depend on fitted nuisance models (logistic propensity, ordinal logistic outcome), but these are estimated from data and are not free parameters tuned to the target estimand. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Randomization: treatment assignment Z is independent of potential outcomes and baseline covariates, with constant propensity pi.
    Stated in Section 2.1; underpins the equivalence of all weighted win estimands to tau_1.
  • domain assumption Positivity: 0 < pi < 1.
    Required for well-defined IPW and OW weights; stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption SUTVA (consistency and no interference): Y = Z Y(1) + (1-Z) Y(0).
    Stated in Section 2.1; connects observed outcomes to the potential outcome estimand.
  • standard math Regularity conditions for U-statistics and U-processes: finite moments and Donsker-type conditions on the kernel classes.
    Invoked in Section 3.3 via Arcones and Gine (1993) and van der Vaart and Wellner (1996) for consistency and asymptotic normality.
  • domain assumption Logistic propensity model includes an intercept so that the constant propensity pi is in the model family.
    Implicit in Section 3.2; required for the estimated weights to converge to weights based on pi and for IPW and OW to target tau_1.
  • domain assumption Double robustness: at least one of the propensity model or the outcome regression model is correctly specified.
    Theorem 2(b); in RCTs the propensity model is effectively correct, satisfying this condition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Covariate-adjusted win statistics in randomized clinical trials with ordinal outcomes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3J722VJ

@misc{pith2026250820349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Covariate-adjusted win statistics in randomized clinical trials with ordinal outcomes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3J722VJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20349}
}
read the original abstract

Ordinal outcomes are common in clinical settings where they often represent increasing levels of disease progression or different levels of functional impairment. In this article, we focus on representing the average treatment effect for ordinal outcomes via intrinsic pairwise outcome comparisons captured through win estimands, such as the win ratio and win difference. Recognizing the value of baseline covariate adjustment toward enhanced precision, we first develop propensity score weighting estimators, including both inverse probability weighting (IPW) and overlap weighting (OW), tailored to estimating win estimands. Furthermore, we develop augmented weighting estimators that leverage an additional ordinal outcome regression to potentially improve efficiency over weighting alone. Leveraging the theory of U-statistics, we establish the asymptotic theory for all estimators, and derive closed-form variance estimators to support statistical inference. We also prove that all of the covariate-adjusted estimators do not compromise consistency for the target estimand even when the associated working models are incorrectly specified; hence these covariate-adjusted estimators are model-robust. Through simulations we demonstrate the enhanced efficiency of the weighted estimators over the unadjusted estimator, with the augmented weighting estimators showing a further improvement in efficiency except for extreme cases. Finally, we illustrate our proposed methods with the ORCHID trial, and implement our covariate adjustment methods in an R package winPSW.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 7,730 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Estimation and Inference for Win Measures with Multiple Ordinal Endpoints Subject to Missingness

    stat.ME 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Develops and validates IPW and AIPW estimators for win measures with missing hierarchical ordinal endpoints, including variance estimation via influence functions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    and Gin \'e , E

    Arcones, M. and Gin \'e , E. (1993), Limit theorems for U-processes, Ann Prob\/ , 21, 1494--1542

    work page 1993

  2. [2]

    and Lachin, J

    Bebu, I. and Lachin, J. (2016), Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components, Biostatistics\/ , 17, 178--187

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Benkeser, D., Díaz, I., Luedtke, A., Segal, J., Scharfstein, D., and Rosenblum, M. (2021), Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes, Biometrics\/ , 77, 1467--1481

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    P., and Li, F

    Cao, Z., Ghazi, L., Mastrogiacomo, C., Forastiere, L., Wilson, F. P., and Li, F. (2025), Using overlap weights to address extreme propensity scores in estimating restricted mean counterfactual survival times, Am J Epidemiol\/ , 194, 2402--2411

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    (2022), Addressing extreme propensity scores in estimating counterfactual survival functions via the overlap weights, Am J Epidemiol\/ , 191, 1140--1151

    Cheng, C., Li, F., Thomas, L., and Li, F. (2022), Addressing extreme propensity scores in estimating counterfactual survival functions via the overlap weights, Am J Epidemiol\/ , 191, 1140--1151

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    (2020), Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study, Lancet\/ , 395, 1763--1770

    Cummings, M., Baldwin, M., Abrams, D., Jacobson, S., Meyer, B., Balough, E., Aaron, J., Claassen, J., Rabbani, L., Hastie, J., Hochman, B., Salazar-Schicchi, J., Yip, N., Brodie, D., and O'Donnell, M. (2020), Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: a prospective cohort study, Lancet\/ , 395, 1763--1770

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    (2020), Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial, Clin Trials\/ , 17, 617--626

    Evans, S., Knutsson, M., Amarenco, P., Albers, G., Bath, P., Denison, H., Ladenvall, P., Jonasson, J., Easton, J., Minematsu, K., Molina, C., Y, W., Wong, K., and Johnston, S. (2020), Methodologies for pragmatic and efficient assessment of benefits and harms: Application to the SOCRATES trial, Clin Trials\/ , 17, 617--626

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    (1948), A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution, Ann Math Stat\/ , 19, 293--352

    Hoeffding, W. (1948), A class of statistics with asymptotically normal distribution, Ann Math Stat\/ , 19, 293--352

    work page 1948

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    ICH (2021), ICH E9(R1) Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials: Addendum: Estimands and Sensitivity Analysis in Clinical Trials\/ , European Medicines Evaluation Agency

    2021

  2. [10]

    and Siegerink, B

    Klok, F. and Siegerink, B. (2023), Ordinal outcomes add value to clinical trials, Lancet\/ , 401, 995

    2023

  3. [11]

    and Li, F

    Li, F. and Li, F. (2019), Propensity score weighting for causal inference with multiple treatments, Ann Appl Stat\/ , 13, 2389--2415

    2019

  4. [12]

    (2018), Balancing covariate via propensity score weighting, J Am Stat Assoc\/ , 113, 390--400

    Li, F., Morgan, K., and Zaslavsky, A. (2018), Balancing covariate via propensity score weighting, J Am Stat Assoc\/ , 113, 390--400

    2018

  5. [13]

    (2019), Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights, Am J Epidemiol\/ , 188, 250--257

    Li, F., Thomas, L., and Li, F. (2019), Addressing extreme propensity scores via the overlap weights, Am J Epidemiol\/ , 188, 250--257

    2019

  6. [14]

    (2019), Propensity score weighting analysis and treatment effect discovery, Stat Methods Med Res\/ , 28, 2439--2454

    Mao, H., Li, L., and Greene, T. (2019), Propensity score weighting analysis and treatment effect discovery, Stat Methods Med Res\/ , 28, 2439--2454

    2019

  7. [15]

    (2018), On the propensity score weighting analysis with survival outcome: Estimands, estimation, and inference, Stat Med\/ , 37, 3745--3763

    Mao, H., Li, L., Yang, W., and Shen, Y. (2018), On the propensity score weighting analysis with survival outcome: Estimands, estimation, and inference, Stat Med\/ , 37, 3745--3763

    2018

  8. [16]

    (2018), On causal estimation using U-statistics, Biometrika\/ , 105, 215--220

    Mao, L. (2018), On causal estimation using U-statistics, Biometrika\/ , 105, 215--220

    2018

  9. [17]

    (1923), On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments: essay on principles, section 9

    Neyman, J. (1923), On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments: essay on principles, section 9. Masters Thesis portions translated into English by D Dabrowska and T Speed (1990), Stat Sci\/ , 5, 465--472

    1923

  10. [18]

    (2017), Analysis of an ordinal endpoint for use in evaluating treatments for severe influenza requiring hospitalization, Clin Trials\/ , 14, 264--276

    Peterson, R., Vock, D., Powers, J., Emery, S., Cruz, E., Hunsberger, S., Jain, M., Pett, S., and Neaton, J. (2017), Analysis of an ordinal endpoint for use in evaluating treatments for severe influenza requiring hospitalization, Clin Trials\/ , 14, 264--276

    2017

  11. [19]

    (2012), The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities, Eur Heart J\/ , 33, 176--182

    Pocock, S., Ariti, C., Collier, T., and Wang, D. (2012), The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities, Eur Heart J\/ , 33, 176--182

    2012

  12. [20]

    and Rubin, D

    Rosenbaum, P. and Rubin, D. (1983), The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects, Biometrika\/ , 70, 41--55

    1983

  13. [21]

    H., Semler, M

    Self, W. H., Semler, M. W., Leither, L. M., Casey, J. D., Angus, D. C., Brower, R. G., Chang, S. Y., Collins, S. P., Eppensteiner, J. C., Filbin, M. R., et al. (2020), Effect of hydroxychloroquine on clinical status at 14 days in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a randomiz...

    2020

  14. [22]

    (2023), Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review, Trials\/ , 24, 286

    Selman, C., Lee, K., Whitehead, C., Manley, B., and Mahar, R. (2023), Statistical analyses of ordinal outcomes in randomised controlled trials: protocol for a scoping review, Trials\/ , 24, 286

    2023

  15. [23]

    (2014), Inverse probability weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized studies, Stat Med\/ , 33, 555--568

    Shen, C., Li, X., and Li, L. (2014), Inverse probability weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized studies, Stat Med\/ , 33, 555--568

    2014

  16. [24]

    (2020), Using propensity score methods to create target populations in observational clinical research, J Am Med Assoc\/ , 323, 466--467

    Thomas, L., Li, F., and Pencina, M. (2020), Using propensity score methods to create target populations in observational clinical research, J Am Med Assoc\/ , 323, 466--467

    2020

  17. [25]

    (2006), Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data\/ , New York: Springer

    Tsiatis, A. (2006), Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data\/ , New York: Springer

    2006

  18. [26]

    (2017), Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: part 1--design, Am J Publ Health\/ , 107, 907--915

    Turner, E., Li, F., Gallis, J., Prague, M., and Murray, D. (2017), Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: part 1--design, Am J Publ Health\/ , 107, 907--915

    2017

  19. [27]

    Z., and Kahan, B

    Uddin, M., Bashir, N. Z., and Kahan, B. C. (2024), Evaluating whether the proportional odds models to analyse ordinal outcomes in COVID-19 clinical trials is providing clinically interpretable treatment effects: A systematic review, Clin Trials\/ , 21, 363--370

    2024

  20. [28]

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2023 a ), Adjusting for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics Products , https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/adjusting-covariates-randomized-clinical-trials-drugs-and-biological-products

    2023

  21. [29]

    Guidance for Industry , https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/covid-19-developing-drugs-and-biological-products-treatment-or-prevention

    --- (2023 b ), COVID-19: Developing Drugs and Biological Products for Treatment or Prevention. Guidance for Industry , https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/covid-19-developing-drugs-and-biological-products-treatment-or-prevention

    2023

  22. [30]

    and Wellner, J

    Van Der Vaart, A. and Wellner, J. (1996), Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes\/ , New York, NY: Springer

    1996

  23. [31]

    Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D. (2002), Modern Applied Statistics with S\/ , New York: Springer, fourth edition, ://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/. ISBN 0-387-95457-0

    2002

  24. [32]

    (2015), Increasing the power of the Mann-Whitney test in randomized experiments through flexible covariate adjustment, Stat Med\/ , 34, 1012--1030

    Vermeulen, K., Thas, O., and Vansteelandt, S. (2015), Increasing the power of the Mann-Whitney test in randomized experiments through flexible covariate adjustment, Stat Med\/ , 34, 1012--1030

    2015

  25. [33]

    (2023 a ), Model-robust inference for clinical trials that improve precision by stratified randomization and covariate adjustment, J Am Stat Assoc\/ , 118, 1152--1163

    Wang, B., Susukida, R., Mojtabai, R., Amin-Esmaeili, M., and Rosenblum, M. (2023 a ), Model-robust inference for clinical trials that improve precision by stratified randomization and covariate adjustment, J Am Stat Assoc\/ , 118, 1152--1163

    2023

  26. [34]

    and Pocock, S

    Wang, D. and Pocock, S. (2016), A win ratio approach to comparing continuous non-normal outcomes in clinical trials, Pharm Stat\/ , 15, 238--245

    2016

  27. [35]

    (2023 b ), Adjusted win ratio using the inverse probability of treatment weighting, J Biopharm Stat\/ , 35, 21--36

    Wang, D., Zheng, S., Cui, Y., He, N., Chen, T., and Huang, B. (2023 b ), Adjusted win ratio using the inverse probability of treatment weighting, J Biopharm Stat\/ , 35, 21--36

    2023

  28. [36]

    (2014), Variance reduction in randomised trials by inverse probability weighting using the propensity score, Stat Med\/ , 33, 721--737

    Williams, E., Forbes, A., and White, I. (2014), Variance reduction in randomised trials by inverse probability weighting using the propensity score, Stat Med\/ , 33, 721--737

    2014

  29. [37]

    (2022), Trial of Erythropoietin for Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy in Newborns, N Engl J Med\/ , 387, 148--159

    Wu, Y., Comstock, B., Gonzalez, F., Mayock, D., Goodman, A., Maitre, N., Chang, T., Meurs, K., AL, L., Bendel-Stenzel, E., Mathur, A., Wu, T., Riley, D., Mietzsch, U., Baserga, M., Poindexter, B., Rogers, E., Lowe, J., Kuban, K., O'Shea, T., Wisnowski, J., Mckinstry, R., Bluml...

    2022

  30. [38]

    (2021), Propensity score weighting for causal subgroup analysis, Stat Med\/ , 40, 4294--4309

    Yang, S., Lorenzi, S., Papadogeorgou, G., Wojdyla, D., Li, F., and Thomas, L. (2021), Propensity score weighting for causal subgroup analysis, Stat Med\/ , 40, 4294--4309

    2021

  31. [39]

    (2021), Propensity score weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials, Stat Med\/ , 40, 842--858

    Zeng, S., Li, F., Wang, R., and Li, F. (2021), Propensity score weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials, Stat Med\/ , 40, 842--858

    2021

  32. [40]

    (2019), Estimating Mann–Whitney-type Causal Effects, Int Stat Rev\/ , 87, 514--530

    Zhang, Z., Ma, S., Shen, C., and Liu, C. (2019), Estimating Mann–Whitney-type Causal Effects, Int Stat Rev\/ , 87, 514--530

    2019

  33. [41]

    Y., Mitra, N., Hemming, K., Harhay, M

    Zhu, A. Y., Mitra, N., Hemming, K., Harhay, M. O., and Li, F. (2024), Leveraging baseline covariates to analyze small cluster-randomized trials with a rare binary outcome, Biometrical J\/ , 66, 2200135

    2024

  34. [42]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.