Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Optimal Treatment Allocations Accounting for Population Differences

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For estimating a target population's average treatment effect, one covariate-dependent randomization rule is optimal regardless of the target population or data setup.

desk verdict The ATE invariance result is correct and new, but the paper should state the mean-exchangeability assumption explicitly rather than hiding it behind citations. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15944 v1 pith:LWU6V4DZ submitted 2025-05-21 stat.ME

Wei Zhang , Zhiwei Zhang , Aiyi Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62K0562D05
keywords optimaltreatmentallocationcovariate-dependentrandomizationaverageeffecttransportabilitygeneralizabilitypost-stratificationefficiencyboundpropensityscore
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

A randomized trial's treatment allocation can be tuned to estimate the effect of interest with maximum precision. This paper asks how to tune it when the estimand is the average treatment effect (ATE) in a target population that overlaps with, but differs from, the trial population. It proves that a single covariate-dependent randomization rule — assign each patient to treatment with probability proportional to the conditional standard deviation of the outcome under that treatment — maximizes asymptotic efficiency for the target ATE, regardless of the target covariate distribution and regardless of whether the target information comes from transportation, generalization, or post-stratification. The same rule is already optimal for the trial population's own ATE. If correct, trial designers can pre-specify one allocation that serves the trial estimand and any externally defined target estimand simultaneously.

What carries the argument

The engine is the semiparametric efficiency bound: for each data configuration (independent target cohort, nested target cohort, or known stratum weights) the paper writes the efficient influence function for the target ATE, then minimizes its variance over the design's propensity score. For CDR the influence functions under all three configurations share the same dependence on the propensity score, and differentiating the variance gives a pointwise first-order condition whose unique solution is the variance-proportional allocation $p_{\rm opt}(W)$. For CIR the same variance calculation yields a scalar equation solved by the density-ratio-weighted allocation $\pi^*_{\rm opt}$. The density ratio $r(W)=dF^*/dF(W)$ is the object that carries the target population's influence for CIR, and it cancels entirely from the CDR solution.

What would settle it

Simulate a trial population and a target population with overlapping covariate supports but different conditional outcome variances, then estimate the variance of the efficient estimator under $p_{\rm opt}(W)$ and under an allocation based on the target's own variances; if the latter achieves smaller variance for the target ATE, the claimed universality holds only under the exchangeability assumption, not as a universal property.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under an exchangeability assumption that the conditional outcome mechanism is shared between trial and target populations, the paper derives the efficient influence function for the target ATE in each of three data configurations and minimizes its variance over designs. The minimizer for covariate-dependent randomization (CDR) is uniquely $p_{\rm opt}(W)=\sqrt{v_1(W)}/(\sqrt{v_1(W)}+\sqrt{v_0(W)})$, where $v_a(W)$ is the conditional variance of the potential outcome under treatment $a$. This design does not depend on the target covariate distribution $F^*$ or on which of the three configurations supplies information about $F^*$; it is the Neyman allocation applied within each covariate stratum. The optimal covariate-independent randomization (CIR) design, by contrast, is $\pi^*_{\rm opt}=[E\{r(W)^2 v_1(W)\}]^{1/2}/([E\{r(W)^2 v_1(W)\}]^{1/2}+[E\{r(W)^2 v_0(W)\}]^{1/2})$, which depends on the target through the density ratio $r=dF^*/dF$ but not on the data configuration. For nonlinear effect measures of the form $g(\mu^*_1)-g(\mu^*_0)$, the optimal CDR allocation depends on the target only through the two target means, not through the density ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The trial and target populations must share the same conditional outcome distribution — same mean and same variance given covariates — so that the trial's variance functions apply to the target estimand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trial can be designed with covariate-dependent randomization using only trial-population outcome variance estimates, and the same design is asymptotically optimal for the trial ATE and for any transportable target ATE.
  • Optimal covariate-independent randomization does depend on the target distribution through the density ratio, so a single fixed randomization fraction cannot serve all target populations.
  • For ATE estimation, CDR strictly dominates CIR in efficiency and removes the need to know the target covariate distribution when choosing the design.
  • For nonlinear contrasts such as risk differences on the log or logit scale, the optimal CDR depends on the target only through the two marginal potential-outcome means, so the density ratio still does not enter.
  • The invariance result holds identically under transportation, generalization, and post-stratification, so the data configuration does not affect the design choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The result suggests a practical workflow: estimate conditional outcome variances from pilot or historical data, pre-specify $p_{\rm opt}(W)$, and the same trial design supports a family of hypothetical target populations.
  • If outcome variances are misspecified, the efficiency loss under CDR is likely second-order, so the design may be robust to moderate misspecification, though the paper does not quantify this.
  • The invariance may extend to multi-arm trials or to estimands defined by weighted averages of subgroup effects; testing that extension would require deriving the corresponding influence functions.
  • A testable implication is that registry-based post-stratification with published summary weights can use the trial-optimal CDR design without re-optimizing, which the HIV example illustrates.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives optimal treatment allocation rules for estimating target-population effect measures from a randomized trial, in three data configurations: transportation, generalization, and post-stratification. The main result is that for estimands of the form ∆* = ∫δ(w)dF*(w) with δ(w)=m(1,w)−m(0,w), the optimal covariate-dependent randomization (CDR) design is p_opt(W)=√v_1(W)/(√v_1(W)+√v_0(W)), independently of the target covariate distribution and of which of the three data configurations supplies information about F*. The optimal covariate-independent randomization (CIR) design depends on F* through E{r(W)^2 v_a(W)} but has the same expression in all three configurations. The paper also extends the results to nonlinear contrasts, and reports a simulation study and an HIV trial example that match the theoretical predictions.

Significance. If the stated conditions are met, the invariance result is practically valuable: a single covariate-dependent randomization achieves the nonparametric efficiency bound for a range of target-population ATE estimands, simplifying trial design and analysis. The paper unifies three previously separate data configurations and the simulation confirms the predicted relative efficiencies. The main reservation is that the scope of the result is conditional on a mean-exchangeability assumption that the paper never states formally; the abstract's 'regardless' phrasing is accordingly stronger than what is proved. The variance-minimization derivations themselves are standard and consistent with the displayed influence functions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.1] The assumption that makes ∆* the target-population ATE is never stated formally. The text says only 'Under a certain exchangeability assumption (e.g., Zhang et al., 2016; Dahabreh et al., 2019; Colnet et al., 2024), ∆* is the ATE in the target population.' The abstract's claim of a design that is optimal 'regardless of the target covariate distribution and the associated data configuration' is therefore stronger than what is proved: without mean exchangeability, meaning m(a,w) identical in the trial and target populations, ∆* is a calibrated or adjusted contrast rather than the target causal effect, and p_opt is optimal for that contrast, not necessarily for the target ATE. Please state the mean-exchangeability assumption explicitly (variance exchangeability is not needed, because all outcome information comes from the trial), and qualify the abstract and theorem statements accordingly.
  2. [Theorems 1-3] The main results are stated without proof; Section 4 says technical proofs are in Supplementary Materials, which is not included in the arXiv version. Because the invariance of the optimal CDR design is the central contribution, the review version should include the supplement or at least the key variance decompositions that yield p_opt and π*_opt in each of the three configurations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Theorems 2 and 3] In Theorem 2 the second minimization clause says 'var{ψgen_cir(O)} is minimized uniquely by setting p equal to popt', and in Theorem 3 the second clause says 'var{ψps_cir(O)} is minimized uniquely by setting p = popt'; both should refer to the CDR influence functions ψgen_cdr and ψps_cdr.
  2. [Section 1 and references] The text cites 'Capiello et al., 2021' but the reference list spells the name 'Cappiello'; please make the spelling consistent.
  3. [Section 4 and references] The reference list includes Ingall et al. (2004) and NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study Group (1995), but neither is cited in the body of the paper; either cite them or remove them.
  4. [Section 3.2] There is a typo 'raltegraviror' in the first paragraph; it should be 'raltegravir'.
  5. [Section 3.1] The notation for the truncated normal is introduced as N(µ,σ^2;l,u) ∼ (X|l≤X≤u), but the simulation line writes N(0,0.75^2;-2,2) with the truncation limits in the same position; the definition should be stated in the order actually used to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the optimal CDR allocation is derived by direct variance minimization of the efficient influence functions.

full rationale

The paper's central result, popt(W) = sqrt(v1(W)) / (sqrt(v1(W)) + sqrt(v0(W))), is derived in Theorems 1–3 by minimizing the variance of the efficient influence functions for the target-population estimand under transportation, generalization, and post-stratification. For fixed W, each CDR influence function has variance contributions proportional to r(W)^2 v1(W)/p(W) and r(W)^2 v0(W)/(1-p(W)), so the minimizer is exactly popt(W), independent of r(W) and of the data configuration. Thus the invariance claim is a mathematical consequence of the derivation, not an input assumption. The CIR efficient influence functions are imported from peer-reviewed prior work by Zhang et al. (2016) and Dahabreh et al. (2019), and the CDR versions are stated in Lemmas 1–3 as direct substitutions of p(W) for pi; the optimization over p(W) is performed in this paper. The trial-population optimal CDR result of Zhang et al. (2023) is cited for context and comparison, but it is not used to justify the new target-population result, which is proved independently. The exchangeability assumption that makes Delta* the target ATE is invoked by citation rather than stated formally, and the abstract's 'regardless of the target covariate distribution' is stronger than the assumptions warrant; however, this is a scope and robustness limitation, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no target result is assumed in the optimization.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical results are parameter-free: the optimal allocations are expressed in terms of population quantities (v_a, r, mu*_a) rather than fitted constants. The listed free parameters come only from the illustrative HIV example. The central derivation rests on standard semiparametric theory and the exchangeability/transportability assumption, which is inherited from the cited causal inference literature rather than proved here.

free parameters (2)
  • Outcome model coefficients beta in model (3) (HIV example) = Estimated from BENCHMRK data, values not reported in text
    Used to compute the illustrative pi_opt, pi_tr_opt, pi_ps_opt values in Section 3.2. These are not part of the theoretical theorems, which are parameter-free.
  • Density ratio model coefficients alpha in log r(w) = alpha0 + alpha1^T w (HIV example) = Estimated from trial-membership logistic regression, values not reported
    Used to compute pi_tr_opt in the transportation illustration. Again illustrative, not load-bearing for the main theoretical claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: F and F* dominate each other, so the density ratio r exists and is finite almost surely.
    Invoked in Theorems 1-3 and Remark 1. Ensures Delta* is identifiable and the variance formulas involving r are well defined.
  • domain assumption Exchangeability/transportability: the conditional outcome distribution, including m(a,w) and v_a(w), is the same in the trial and target populations.
    Invoked by reference in Section 2.1 ('Under a certain exchangeability assumption (e.g., Zhang et al., 2016; Dahabreh et al., 2019; Colnet et al., 2024)'). Without it, Delta* is not the target ATE and the optimal CDR design based on trial-population variances does not target the intended estimand.
  • domain assumption Mean exchangeability for the g-transformed effect measures in Section 2.5.
    Needed so that mu*_a = integral m(a,w) dF*(w) is the target mean potential outcome and Delta*(g) is a causal contrast.
  • standard math Correctness of the cited efficient influence functions for CIR: Zhang et al. (2016) for transportation and Dahabreh et al. (2019) for generalization.
    The derivations of optimal CIR designs build directly on these published EIFs. The post-stratification EIF is derived as Lemma 3 in the paper.
  • standard math Standard semiparametric regularity conditions for efficiency bounds (e.g., Bickel et al., 1993).
    Assumed background for the definition of the nonparametric efficiency bound and influence functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Treatment Allocations Accounting for Population Differences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LWU6V4DZ

@misc{pith2026250515944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Treatment Allocations Accounting for Population Differences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LWU6V4DZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15944}
}
read the original abstract

The treatment allocation mechanism in a randomized clinical trial can be optimized by maximizing the nonparametric efficiency bound for a specific measure of treatment effect. Optimal treatment allocations which may or may not depend on baseline covariates have been derived for a variety of effect measures focusing on the trial population, the patient population represented by the trial participants. Frequently, clinical trial data are used to estimate treatment effects in a target population that is related to but different from the trial population. This article provides optimal treatment allocations that account for the impact of such population differences. We consider three cases with different data configurations: transportation, generalization, and post-stratification. Our results indicate that, for general effect measures, optimal treatment allocations may depend on the covariate distribution in the target population but not on the configuration of data or information that describes the target covariate distribution. For estimating average treatment effects, there is a unique covariate-dependent allocation that achieves maximal efficiency regardless of the target covariate distribution and the associated data configuration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The optimal CDR design in the simulation study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗

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. Full citation record

  1. Target-Weighted Neyman Allocation: Experimental Design for Heterogeneous Treatment Effects under Population Shift

    cs.LG 2026-08 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    For target-weighted group average treatment effects under population shift, the optimal two-stage design allocates groups in proportion to sqrt(deployment share) times the sum of arm standard deviations, with the Neym...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (1993) Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models

    Bickel, P.J., Klaassen, C.A.J., Ritov, Y and Wellner, J.A. (1993) Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press

    1993

  2. [2]

    and Day, N

    Breslow, N. and Day, N. (1987) Statistical methods in cancer research, volume II: The design and analysis of cohort studies World Health Organization

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    L., Mingrone, H., Shuldyakov, A., Brites, C., Andrade-Villaneuva, J

    Cahn, P., Pozniak, A. L., Mingrone, H., Shuldyakov, A., Brites, C., Andrade-Villaneuva, J. F., et al. for the SAILING Study Team (2013). Dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-experienced, integrase-inhibitor-naive adults with HIV: Week 48 results from the randomised, doubleblind, non-inferiority SAILING study. Lancet, 382, 700--708

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    and Yeh, R.W

    Cappiello, L., Zhang, Z., Shen, C., Butala, N.M., Cui, X. and Yeh, R.W. (2021) Adjusting for population differences using machine learning methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C, 70, 750--769

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    and Stuart, E.A

    Cole, S.R. and Stuart, E.A. (2010) Generalizing evidence From randomized clinical trials to target populations: the ACTG 320 trial. American Journal of Epidemiology, 172, 107--115

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    (2024) Causal inference methods for combining randomized trials and observational studies: A review

    Colnet B, Mayer I, Chen, G, Dieng, A, Li R, Varoquaux G, Vert J, Josse J, Yang S. (2024) Causal inference methods for combining randomized trials and observational studies: A review. Statistical Science, 39, 165--191

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A., Steigbigel, R

    Cooper, D. A., Steigbigel, R. T., Gatell, J. M., Rockstroh, J. K.,Katlama, C., Yeni, P., et al. for the BENCHMRK StudyTeams. (2008). Subgroup and resistant analyses of Raltegravirfor resistant HIV-1 infection. New England Journal of Medicine 359, 355–365

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    and et al

    Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., Demirer, M., Duflo, E., Hansen, C., Newey, W. and et al. (2018) Double/debiased machine learning for treatment and structural parameters. Econometrics Journal, 21, C1--C68

    2018

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    and Hernan, M.A

    Dahabreh, I.J., Robertson, S.E., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E.J., Stuart, E.A. and Hernan, M.A. (2019) Generalizing causal inferences from individuals in randomized trials to all trial-eligible individuals. Biometrics, 75, 685--694

    2019

  2. [10]

    and Carroll, R

    Davidian, M. and Carroll, R. J. (1987) Variance function estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1079--1091

    1987

  3. [11]

    and Nyquist, H

    Fackle-Fornius, E. and Nyquist, H. (2015) Optimal allocation to treatment groups under variance heterogeneity. Statistica Sinica, 25, 537--549

    2015

  4. [12]

    Guidance for Industry: Adjusting for covariates in randomized clinical trials for drugs and biological products

    Food and Drug Administration (2021). Guidance for Industry: Adjusting for covariates in randomized clinical trials for drugs and biological products. Available at !https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/! !adjusting-covariates-randomized-clini...

    2021

  5. [13]

    (1998) On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects

    Hahn, J. (1998) On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica, 66, 315--331

    1998

  6. [14]

    and Friedman, J

    Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. and Friedman, J. (2009) The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd ed. New York, Springer-Verlag

    2009

  7. [15]

    Ingall, T.J., O’Fallon, W.M., Asplund, K., Goldfrank, L.R., Hertzberg, V.S., Louis, T.A. et al. (2004) Findings from the reanalysis of the NINDS tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke treatment trial. Stroke, 35, 2418--2424

    2004

  8. [16]

    and G'Sell, M

    Kennedy, E.H., Balakrishnan, S. and G'Sell, M. (2020) Sharp instruments for classifying compliers and generalizing causal effects. Annals of Statistics, 48, 2008--2030

    2020

  9. [17]

    and van der Laan, M.J

    Moore, K.L. and van der Laan, M.J. (2009) Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: targeted maximum likelihood estimation. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 39--64

    2009

  10. [18]

    Neyman, J. (1934). On the two different aspects of the representative method: The method of stratified sampling and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97, 558--625

    1934

  11. [19]

    and Chu, J

    Nie, L., Zhang, Z., Rubin, D.B. and Chu, J. (2013) Calibration of treatment effect size through propensity score ratio reweighting, with application to clinical trials. Annals of Applied Statistics, 7, 1796--1813

    2013

  12. [20]

    (1995) Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke

    NINDS rt-PA Stroke Study Group. (1995) Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. New England Journal of Medicine, 333, 1581--1587

    1995

  13. [21]

    and van der Laan, M.J

    Polley, E.C., Rose, S. and van der Laan, M.J. (2011) Super learning. In Targeted Learning, pages 43--66. New York, Springer

    2011

  14. [22]

    (1983) Clinical trials: a practical approach

    Pocock, S.J. (1983) Clinical trials: a practical approach. New York, John Wiley and Sons

    1983

  15. [23]

    and Brumback, B

    Robins, J.M., Hernan, M.A. and Brumback, B. (2000) Marginal Structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology, 11, 550--560

    2000

  16. [24]

    and Rubin, D.B

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

    1983

  17. [25]

    and Rubin, D.B

    Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516--524

    1984

  18. [26]

    and Rubin, D.B

    Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33--38

    1985

  19. [27]

    and Sverdlov, O

    Rosenberger, W.F. and Sverdlov, O. (2008) Handling covariates in the design of clinical trials. Statistical Science, 23, 404--419

    2008

  20. [28]

    and van der Laan, M.J

    Rosenblum, M. and van der Laan, M.J. (2010) Simple, efficient estimators of treatment effects in randomized trials using generalized linear models to leverage baseline variables. International Journal of Biostatistics, 6, article 13

    2010

  21. [29]

    (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies

    Rubin, D.B. (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688--701

    1974

  22. [30]

    and van der Laan, M.J

    Rubin, D.B. and van der Laan, M.J. (2008) Empirical efficiency maximization: improved locally efficient covariate adjustment in randomized experiments and survival analysis. International Journal of Biostatistics, 4, article 5

    2008

  23. [31]

    and van der Laan, M.J

    Rudolph, K.E. and van der Laan, M.J. (2017) Robust estimation of encouragement design intervention effects transported across sites. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 79, 1509--1525

    2017

  24. [32]

    A., Kumar, P

    Steigbigel, R.T., Cooper, D. A., Kumar, P. N., Eron, J. E.,Schechter, M., Markowitz, M., et al. for the BENCHMRK Study Teams (2008) Raltegravir with optimized backgroundtherapy for resistant HIV-1 infection. New England Journalof Medicine 359, 339--354

    2008

  25. [33]

    Leaf, P.J

    Stuart, E.A., Cole, S.R., Bradshaw, C.P. Leaf, P.J. (2011) The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 174, 369--386

    2011

  26. [34]

    and Wei, L.J

    Tian, L., Cai, T., Zhao, L. and Wei, L.J. (2012) On the covariate-adjusted estimation for an overall treatment difference with data from a randomized comparative clinical trial. Biostatistics, 13, 256--273

    2012

  27. [35]

    (2006) Semiparametric Theory and Missing Data

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

    2006

  28. [36]

    and Lu, X

    Tsiatis, A.A., Davidian, M., Zhang, M. and Lu, X. (2008) Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet flexible approach. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 4658--4677

    2008

  29. [37]

    and Hubbard, A.E

    van der Laan, M.J., Polley, E.C. and Hubbard, A.E. (2007) Super Learner. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 6, article 5

    2007

  30. [38]

    and Robins, J.M

    van der Laan, M.J. and Robins, J.M. (2003) Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality. New York, Spring-Verlag

    2003

  31. [39]

    and Rose, S

    van der Laan, M.J. and Rose, S. (2011) Targeted Learning: Causal Inference for Observational and Experimental Data. New York, Springer

    2011

  32. [40]

    (1998) Asymptotic Statistics

    van der Vaart, A.W. (1998) Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    1998

  33. [41]

    and Wellner, J.A

    van der Vaart, A.W. and Wellner, J.A. (1996) Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes with Applications to Statistics. New York, Springer-Verlag

    1996

  34. [42]

    and Zhu, W

    Wong, W.K. and Zhu, W. (2008) Optimum treatment allocation rules under a variance heterogeneity model. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 4581--4595

    2008

  35. [43]

    Toward better practice of covariate adjustment in analyzing randomized clinical trials

    Ye T, Shao J, Yi Y, Zhao Q (2023). Toward better practice of covariate adjustment in analyzing randomized clinical trials. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 118, 2370--2382

    2023

  36. [44]

    and Zhang, H

    Zhang, Z., Li, W. and Zhang, H. (2020) Efficient estimation of Mann-Whitney-type effect measures for right-censored survival outcomes in randomized clinical trials. Statistics in Biosciences, 12, 246--262

    2020

  37. [45]

    and Liu, A

    Zhang, W., Zhang, Z. and Liu, A. (2023) Optimizing treatment allocation in randomized clinical trials by leveraging baseline covariates. Biometrics, 79, 2815--2829

    2023

  38. [46]

    and Davidian, M

    Zhang, M., Tsiatis, A.A. and Davidian, M. (2008) Improving efficiency of inferences in randomized clinical trials using auxiliary covariates. Biometrics, 64, 707--715

    2008

  39. [47]

    (2009) Covariate-adjusted putative placebo analysis in active-controlled clinical trials

    Zhang, Z. (2009) Covariate-adjusted putative placebo analysis in active-controlled clinical trials. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 1, 279--290

    2009

  40. [48]

    and Hu, Z

    Zhang, Z., Nie, L., Soon, G. and Hu, Z. (2016) New methods for treatment effect calibration, with applications to non-inferiority trials. Biometrics, 72, 20--29

    2016

  41. [49]

    and Ma, S

    Zhang, Z. and Ma, S. (2019) Machine learning methods for leveraging baseline covariate information to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 38, 1703--1714

    2019

  42. [50]

    and van der Laan, M.J

    Zheng, W. and van der Laan, M.J. (2011) Cross-validated targeted minimum-loss-based estimation. In Targeted Learning, pages 459--474. New York, Springer

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.