Win-Ratio Regression for Prioritized Composite Outcomes in Observational Studies: Doubly Robust and Efficient Estimation with Future-Score Correction

Changyong Feng; Lucy Shao; Tuo Lin; Xin M. Tu; Yi Guo; Zhuochao Huang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Win-Ratio Regression for Prioritized Composite Outcomes in Observational Studies: Doubly Robust and Efficient Estimation with Future-Score Correction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future-score correction lets censored pairs keep contributing to win-ratio regression.

desk verdict Future-score correction is a real new idea with solid theory, but the paper underestimates how much of its practical value hinges on at least one of the censoring or transition models being right. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10728 v1 pith:VIMPZPR4 submitted 2026-08-11 stat.ME

Zhuochao Huang , Lucy Shao , Yi Guo , Xin M. Tu , Changyong Feng , Tuo Lin This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.ME MSC 62G0562G2062P10

keywords win-ratioregressionprioritizedcompositeoutcomesfuture-scorecorrectiondoublerobustnessinverseprobabilityofcensoringweightingsemiparametricefficiencyU-statisticselectronichealthrecords

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

This paper proposes a regression method for prioritized composite outcomes—outcomes like death-before-hospitalization—in observational studies where follow-up is censored. The target is a time-constant logit coefficient that balances a duration-weighted pairwise residual over follow-up, and the observed-data estimating equation is built so that a pair continues to contribute information after censoring. The mechanism is future-score correction: when censoring stops a pair's later comparisons from being observed, the missing portion of the pairwise score is replaced by its conditional expectation given the observed pair histories. Treatment weighting and baseline outcome augmentation are added, and the paper proves the estimator is doubly robust for both treatment assignment and censoring, asymptotically normal, and semiparametrically efficient when nuisance functions are correct. Simulations show the correction's efficiency gain grows with censoring, reaching about 1.5-fold at 65% censoring, and an electronic health record application illustrates the method.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the future-score projection $$\Phi_{ij,\ell}(\$\beta$) = E\left\{\sum_{r>\ell} S^\circ_{ij,r}(\$\beta$) \,\middle|\, H^+_{ij,\ell}\right\},$$ the $L^2$-best predictable predictor of the remaining pairwise score after interval $\ell$. It enters the censoring-corrected score $$$S^{{FC}}$_{ij}(\$\beta$;G,\Phi)=\sum_{\ell=1}^M \frac{Y_{ij}(t_{\ell-1})}{G_{ij,\ell-1}}S^\circ_{ij,\ell}(\$\beta$)+\sum_{\ell=1}^{M-1}\frac{Y_{ij}(t_{\ell-1})}{G_{ij,\ell}}\Phi_{ij,\ell}(\$\beta$)\,dM^C_{ij,\ell}(G),$$ whose first term is standard pairwise inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting and whose second term is the future-score correction. The augmented kernel multiplies the centered censoring-corrected score by the inverse-propensity treatment weight and adds back the baseline outcome regression $m$, which is what produces double robustness for treatment and censoring. The projection is computed either by deterministic forward recursion under fitted one-step death and hospitalization transition models on a finite state space, or by Monte Carlo draws from the fitted future-trajectory distributions.

What would settle it

Simulate a treated-versus-control cohort with 65% censoring where censoring and the future transition model both omit a strong shared predictor (e.g., a frail subgroup with higher death, hospitalization, and censoring rates), fit AIPW-FC with both misspecified, and check whether the estimated coefficient drifts from the known complete-data target; if the bias does not vanish, the double-robustness claim fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the censoring-corrected estimating equation based on the augmented kernel $$K_{ij}(\$\beta$;\eta) = \frac{A_i(1-A_j)}{e(X_i)(1-e(X_j))}\{$S^{{FC}}$_{ij}(\$\beta$;G,\Phi)-m(X_i,X_j;\$\beta$)\}+m(X_i,X_j;\$\beta$)$$ has the same population root $\beta_0$ as the complete-data target $E\{\varphi^\circ_{12}(\beta)\}=0$. When censoring removes a pair from future risk, the correction term $\Phi_{ij,\ell}$, the conditional expectation of the remaining complete-data score given the observed pair history, fills in the lost contribution through a telescoping inverse-weighting identity. As a result, the estimator remains consistent if either the censoring survival model or the future-score projection is correct, and if either the propensity score or the baseline outcome regression is correct; at the true nuisance functions the estimator is regular and attains the semiparametric efficiency bound. In simulations the correction reduces variance relative to inverse-probability weighting alone, with relative efficiency up to 1.50 under 65% censoring, while point estimates stay near the complete-data target.

Load-bearing premise

The estimator is consistent only if at least one of the fitted censoring model or the fitted future-score projection is correct, and at least one of the treatment propensity model or the outcome regression is correct; in the paper's implementation the future-score projection is built from one-step death and hospitalization transition models fitted to the same data, so if censoring and those transition models are both wrong, the estimating equation can be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Under heavy censoring, unresolved pairs no longer have to be discarded: simulations show the correction's efficiency gain grows from about 1.1 at 30% censoring to 1.5 at 65% censoring, with near-nominal coverage.
The same regression coefficient can be estimated from observational EHR-style data with a causal treatment interpretation, because the estimator is consistent when either propensity or outcome regression is correct and either censoring model or future-score projection is correct.
Wald inference from the empirical Hoeffding projection gives valid confidence intervals, so bootstrap resampling is not the only option for standard errors in win-ratio regression.
In the OneFlorida breast cancer analysis, future-score correction cuts the standard error of the treatment coefficient from 0.21 to 0.18 at three years and leaves point estimates essentially unchanged, indicating the gain comes from recovered information rather than a shifted estimand.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension is to apply the same future-score correction to other win statistics, such as win odds or net benefit, wherever the unobserved future part of a comparison has a predictable conditional mean given the observed pair history.
Because the correction exploits predictability of the future, the efficiency gain should shrink when the transition models lose predictive power; comparing AIPW-FC against AIPW under deliberately weak transition models would quantify how much of the reported 1.5-fold gain depends on the quality of the fitted recursion.
If a future study has access to auxiliary longitudinal markers that predict hospitalization, conditioning the future-score projection on them should amplify the efficiency gain, since the projection becomes more accurate; this is a direct implication of the mechanism that the paper does not simulate.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core idea here is genuinely new: when censoring cuts off the future portion of a pairwise score, replace it with its conditional expectation given the observed histories. That future-score correction, combined with inverse treatment weighting and outcome augmentation, gives a doubly robust estimating equation with a clean U-statistic theory. The proofs in the appendix are thorough and, as far as I can tell, internally consistent. The simulation results showing relative efficiency gains up to 1.50 under 65% censoring are plausible and the bootstrap inference matches the plug-in variance estimator well in the correctly specified scenarios.

The soft spot is one the authors actually half-acknowledge but do not confront. Theorem 3.2 gives double robustness in the usual sense: you need either the censoring survival G or the future-score projection Phi to be correct, and separately either the propensity e or the outcome regression m to be correct. In the EHR application, both G and Phi are working models estimated from the same cohort, and the transition model for Phi is a simple one-step Markov recursion over four states. Nothing in the paper suggests either is correctly specified. When both are wrong, the product of misspecification errors is not negligible; the bias is first order. The simulation study only tests one-side misspecification at a time, not the double-misspecification that is most relevant to the application. That is a genuine gap in evidence for the practical claims.

A second, related limitation is that the efficiency gain (RE up to 1.50) is demonstrated only under correct nuisance models. Under misspecification we do not know how much of that precision benefit survives, or whether the point estimates still target the intended quantity. This is not a fatal flaw in the methodology, but it should be stated more prominently than the abstract suggests.

Minor points: the semiparametric efficiency claim relies on the standard tangent-space closure assertion, which is accepted but not proved; and no code or data are provided, so independent replication is currently impossible. The treatment-misspecification simulations showed AIPW-FC correcting bias from a bad propensity model, which is reassuring.

The paper is a real methodological contribution for win-ratio regression in the presence of censoring and confounding. The formal theory is a step beyond the existing IPCW literature, and the future-score construction is worth taking seriously. The main fixes needed are a double-misspecification simulation, a more cautious framing of the efficiency gains, and release of code. I would send it to a serious statistics journal for peer review; with those additions it could be a solid publication.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a win-ratio regression framework for prioritized composite outcomes under right censoring, centered on a future-score correction that replaces unobserved future pairwise score contributions by their conditional expectation given observed pair histories. A complete-data target is defined through an integrated residual process (Eq. 2.5), and an observed-data estimating equation is built by combining inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting, inverse-propensity treatment weighting, and baseline outcome augmentation (Eq. 3.2). The main theoretical claims are double robustness for treatment assignment and censoring (Theorems 3.1 and 3.2), consistency and asymptotic normality of the cross-fitted U-statistic estimator (Proposition 4.2 and Theorem 4.3), and semiparametric efficiency when all nuisance functions are correctly specified (Corollary 4.5). The paper reports simulations at 30%, 50%, and 65% censoring, with relative efficiency gains up to 1.50 for AIPW-FC, and an application to OneFlorida breast cancer data comparing adjuvant chemotherapy groups under a death-before-hospitalization priority rule.

Significance. If the theoretical claims are fully justified, the paper makes a useful contribution to win-ratio methodology for observational studies with censored prioritized outcomes: it defines a clean complete-data estimand, provides a principled way to use information from unresolved pairs, and supplies a full set of proofs in the appendix. The simulation design is carefully benchmarked against an independently computed target, and the application illustrates the method on a real EHR cohort. The main caveats are that the efficiency claim rests on an unverified tangent-space assertion, the consistency proof for estimated nuisance functions has a gap as written, and the practical double-robustness guarantee is not examined under the double-misspecification scenario most relevant to the EHR application.

major comments (3)

[Section B.4, Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 4.5] The semiparametric efficiency result hinges on the sentence "For the nonparametric observed-data model considered here, the closure of the observed-data tangent space at P0 is L2_0(P0)" (Section B.4). This assertion is stated without proof or reference. Because the model is defined under sequential independent censoring and treatment exchangeability, it is not obvious whether these are restrictions on the statistical model or merely identifying assumptions on P0; the tangent space could be a proper subspace in the former case. Please provide a rigorous justification or a precise citation to standard nonparametric censoring-model tangent-space results.
[Section B.5, proof of Proposition 4.2] The consistency proof asserts that because the evaluation pairs are independent of the cross-fitted nuisance fits, one may replace \hat\eta by \eta_{P0}(\beta) directly: the displayed equation "\hat U_n(\beta) = 1/(n(n-1)) \sum K_{ij}{\beta;\eta_{P0}(\beta)} + o_p(1)" does not follow from independence alone. One needs an additional argument, for example using the second-order drift bound in Theorem 3.2 together with uniform L2 consistency of the nuisance estimators and the Lipschitz condition in Assumption B.8, to show that the random-nuisance term is o_p(1) uniformly on \Theta. As written this is a gap in a central proof.
[Section 3.3 and Appendix C.3] The double-robustness guarantee in Theorem 3.2 requires at least one of the censoring survival G and the future-score projection \Phi to be correctly specified. In the implementation, \Phi is obtained from one-step Markov transition models for death and hospitalization fitted to the same data (Section 3.3, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5); Appendix D.2). The misspecification study in Section C.3 varies G alone or \Phi alone, but not both. When both are misspecified, the second-order drift bound in Theorem 3.2 is O(||G-G0|| ||\Phi-\Phi0||), which need not vanish, so the bias can be O(1). The paper should either add a double-misspecification simulation, especially under the kind of realistic misspecification expected in the OneFlorida application, or explicitly state this limitation and temper the wording of the robustness claims.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section 3.2] The phrase "double robustness for treatment assignment and censoring" could be more precise: it means either the propensity or the outcome model is correct, and either the censoring model or the future-score projection is correct, not robustness to arbitrary simultaneous misspecification.
[Table 1 and Section 5] For AIPW-FC, the table reports two ASE and coverage values (model-based and bootstrap) without an explicit column label in the header; a footnote such as "model/bootstrap" would make the table easier to read.
[Section C.2] The sentence reporting "the common benchmark value ... for all three censoring scenarios" should note that this equality is by construction, since the complete-data target is defined free of censoring.
[Section 4, after Eq. (4.1)] The notation \hat\eta_{ij} is introduced only in the sentence following Eq. (4.1); consider defining it immediately before the estimating equation to avoid ambiguity.
[References] A few reference formatting issues, such as "WANG Hongyue" in the text and the reference list, should be cleaned up for journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the complete-data target and the observed-data estimating equation are defined independently, and double robustness is verified explicitly rather than imported from a self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The complete-data estimand beta_0 is defined independently in Definition 2.1 through the population condition E{phi^o_12(beta_0)}=0. The observed-data kernel K_12 in (3.2) is then constructed so that, at the true nuisance functions, E{K_12(beta_0; eta_0)} = E{phi^o_12(beta_0)}; this is the standard construction of an unbiased augmented estimating equation, not a definitional identification of the target with the estimator. Theorem 3.1 establishes censoring double robustness by explicit martingale and iterated-expectation calculations, and Theorem 3.2 gives a concrete second-order product-remainder bound of the form O(||e-e_0|| ||m-m_0|| + ||G-G_0|| ||Phi-Phi_0||). The efficiency claim follows from an influence-function computation for the nonparametric observed-data model, not from an imported uniqueness theorem or from fitting the target to the data used for evaluation. The future-score projection Phi is estimated from the same data by recursive one-step transition models, but this is a nuisance-estimation step: cross-fitting and the product-rate condition in Theorem 4.3 control its contribution, and the double-robustness theory explicitly permits Phi to be misspecified when G is correct. The self-citations present in the paper (Kowalski and Tu 2008; Hongyue et al. 2017) are background references for U-statistics and the win-ratio convention and are not load-bearing for the paper's central claims. The practical concern that both G and Phi may be misspecified in the OneFlorida application is a finite-sample robustness limitation, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical claim has no free parameters fitted to data; the estimand beta_0 is a population root defined by Eq. (2.5). All assumptions are standard domain assumptions for censored causal inference plus smoothness and regularity conditions for semiparametric efficiency. The implementation adds a Markov transition model for future hospitalization and death, which is a strong modeling assumption but not part of the formal theorem.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Assumption B.3: Sequentially independent censoring; the censoring jump at each interval is independent of the future complete-data outcome path given the observed history.
Load-bearing for the martingale identities in Theorem 3.1; if violated, the future-score correction is not unbiased.
domain assumption Assumption B.6: Treatment exchangeability and positivity; treatment assignment is independent of potential outcomes and censoring given X, and the propensity score is bounded away from 0 and 1.
Needed for the treatment weighting and augmentation to identify the complete-data target.
domain assumption Assumption B.4: Censoring positivity; pair-level censoring survival is bounded away from zero on the support of observed histories.
Required for inverse censoring weights and the inverse-censoring telescoping identity.
domain assumption Correct specification of at least one of G or Phi, and separately of at least one of e or m, for consistency (Theorem 3.2).
Double robustness is the central identifying condition; in the implementation Phi comes from fitted one-step transition models.
domain assumption Time-constant logit model for the pairwise win probability (Eq. 2.2 and Definition 2.1).
Defines the estimand beta_0; if the proportional win-fractions model fails, the target is still a well-defined duration-weighted projection.
standard math Pathwise differentiability and chain rule for moment functionals (Assumptions B.7 and B.8).
Needed for the efficient influence function derivation and the semiparametric efficiency claim.
standard math U-statistic Hoeffding decomposition and central limit theory.
Used for asymptotic linearity and the Wald variance estimator.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Win-Ratio Regression for Prioritized Composite Outcomes in Observational Studies: Doubly Robust and Efficient Estimation with Future-Score Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VIMPZPR4

@misc{pith2026260810728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Win-Ratio Regression for Prioritized Composite Outcomes in Observational Studies: Doubly Robust and Efficient Estimation with Future-Score Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VIMPZPR4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10728}
}

read the original abstract

Prioritized pairwise outcomes are useful when clinical events follow a natural hierarchy, but censoring before pair resolution complicates estimation. We develop a win-ratio regression framework for this setting by defining a complete-data target over follow-up and deriving an estimating equation for the observed data. The central idea is future-score correction (FC): when censoring prevents later pairwise comparisons from being observed, the method replaces the remaining score with its conditional expectation given the observed history. This correction recovers pairwise information beyond that provided by inverse censoring weights alone. Additionally, we incorporate treatment weighting and baseline outcome augmentation to address baseline confounding. Together, these components yield double robustness for treatment assignment and censoring. Inference is obtained from U-statistic theory. Under standard regularity conditions, the AIPW-FC estimator is asymptotically normal and efficient when all nuisance functions are correctly specified. Simulations with 30%, 50%, and 65% censoring show that efficiency gains from future-score correction increase with the censoring rate, with relative efficiency reaching 1.50 under 65% censoring and near-nominal coverage for AIPW-FC. An application to OneFlorida electronic health record data illustrates the method for a composite outcome that prioritizes death over hospitalization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

The Annals of Probability , pages=

Limit theorems for U-processes , author=. The Annals of Probability , pages=. 1993 , publisher=

work page 1993
[2]

, author=

Analysis of survival by tumor response. , author=. Journal of clinical oncology , volume=

work page
[3]

Biometrics , volume=

Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models , author=. Biometrics , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

2005
[4]

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics , volume=

The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring , author=. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

work page 2020
[5]

Pharmaceutical Statistics , volume=

Adjusting win statistics for dependent censoring , author=. Pharmaceutical Statistics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

work page 2021
[6]

Statistics in medicine , volume=

Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials , author=. Statistics in medicine , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

1999
[7]

A Magyar Tudom

Limiting distributions in simple random sampling from a finite population , author=. A Magyar Tudom. 1960 , publisher=

1960
[8]

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pages=

A combinatorial central limit theorem , author=. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pages=. 1951 , publisher=

work page 1951

Show all 46 references

[9]

Clinical Trials , volume=

Defining estimand for the win ratio: Separate the true effect from censoring , author=. Clinical Trials , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[10]

Biometrics , volume=

A class of proportional win-fractions regression models for composite outcomes , author=. Biometrics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[11]

Biometrika , volume=

On the win-ratio statistic in clinical trials with multiple types of event , author=. Biometrika , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

2016
[12]

European heart journal , volume=

The win ratio: a new approach to the analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials based on clinical priorities , author=. European heart journal , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

2012
[13]

Journal of the American statistical Association , volume=

Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed , author=. Journal of the American statistical Association , volume=. 1994 , publisher=

1994
[14]

Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=

Adjusting for nonignorable drop-out using semiparametric nonresponse models , author=. Journal of the American Statistical Association , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

1999
[15]

2006 , publisher=

Semiparametric theory and missing data , author=. 2006 , publisher=

2006
[16]

Handbook of econometrics , volume=

Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing , author=. Handbook of econometrics , volume=. 1994 , publisher=

1994
[17]

2000 , publisher=

Asymptotic statistics , author=. 2000 , publisher=

2000
[18]

2003 , publisher=

Unified methods for censored longitudinal data and causality , author=. 2003 , publisher=

2003
[19]

Biostatistics , volume=

Large sample inference for a win ratio analysis of a composite outcome based on prioritized components , author=. Biostatistics , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

2016
[20]

Statistics in Medicine , volume=

Win odds: an adaptation of the win ratio to include ties , author=. Statistics in Medicine , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[21]

Statistics in medicine , volume=

Generalized pairwise comparisons of prioritized outcomes in the two-sample problem , author=. Statistics in medicine , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

2010
[22]

2008 , publisher=

Modern applied U-statistics , author=. 2008 , publisher=

2008
[23]

Biometrics , volume=

An alternative approach to confidence interval estimation for the win ratio statistic , author=. Biometrics , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

2015
[24]

Encyclopedia of biostatistics , volume=

Inverse probability weighted estimation in survival analysis , author=. Encyclopedia of biostatistics , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

2005
[25]

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , volume=

The win odds: statistical inference and regression , author=. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[26]

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=

Probabilistic index models , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

2012
[27]

Statistics in medicine , volume=

Stratified proportional win-fractions regression analysis , author=. Statistics in medicine , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[28]

Lifetime Data Analysis , volume=

Generalized win-odds regression models for composite endpoints , author=. Lifetime Data Analysis , volume=. 2026 , publisher=

2026
[29]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07762 , year=

Probabilistic Win Ratio Method For Hierarchical Composite Endpoints With Coarsened Outcomes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07762 , year=

arXiv
[30]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27085 , year=

Estimation and Inference for Win Measures with Multiple Ordinal Endpoints Subject to Missingness , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27085 , year=

arXiv
[31]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.26507 , year=

Improving inverse probability of censoring weighting for win statistics with composite survival outcomes , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.26507 , year=

arXiv
[32]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08101 , year=

Multi-Dimensional Composite Endpoint Analysis via the Choquet Integral: Block Recurrent Encoding and Comparative Advantage Mapping , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.08101 , year=

arXiv
[33]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13533 , year=

Estimation and Inference of the Win Ratio for Two Hierarchical Endpoints Subject to Censoring and Missing Data , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13533 , year=
[34]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.04360 , year=

Generalized win fraction regression for composite survival endpoints , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.04360 , year=

arXiv
[35]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16080 , year=

Bayesian joint modelling using semiparametric accelerated failure time approaches , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16080 , year=
[36]

Clinical Trials , volume=

Defining estimand for the win ratio: Separate the true effect from censoring , author=. Clinical Trials , volume=
[37]

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research , volume=

Restricted time win ratio: From estimands to estimation , author=. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research , volume=
[38]

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science , volume=

The elusiveness of the win ratio parameter in the presence of missing data , author=. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science , volume=
[39]

Pharmaceutical Statistics , volume=

Win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect on time-to-event outcomes , author=. Pharmaceutical Statistics , volume=
[40]

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research , volume=

Trial Design with Win Statistics for Multiple Time-to-Event Endpoints with Hierarchy , author=. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research , volume=
[41]

Statistics in Medicine , volume=

An IPCW Adjusted Win Statistics Approach in Clinical Trials Incorporating Equivalence Margins to Define Ties , author=. Statistics in Medicine , volume=
[42]

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , year=

Win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit): Noncollapsibility and standardization for randomized clinical trials , author=. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , year=
[43]

European Heart Journal , volume=

The win ratio in cardiology trials: lessons learnt, new developments, and wise future use , author=. European Heart Journal , volume=
[44]

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , volume=

The win odds: statistical inference and regression , author=. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics , volume=
[45]

Cardio Oncology , volume=

Impact of pre-existing frailty on cardiotoxicity among breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant therapy , author=. Cardio Oncology , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

2025
[46]

Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry , volume=

Win ratio--An intuitive and easy-to-interpret composite outcome in medical studies , author=. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry , volume=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Annals of Probability , pages=

Limit theorems for U-processes , author=. The Annals of Probability , pages=. 1993 , publisher=

work page 1993

[2] [2]

, author=

Analysis of survival by tumor response. , author=. Journal of clinical oncology , volume=

work page

[3] [3]

Biometrics , volume=

Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models , author=. Biometrics , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

2005

[4] [4]

Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics , volume=

The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring , author=. Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Pharmaceutical Statistics , volume=

Adjusting win statistics for dependent censoring , author=. Pharmaceutical Statistics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Statistics in medicine , volume=

Combining mortality and longitudinal measures in clinical trials , author=. Statistics in medicine , volume=. 1999 , publisher=

1999

[7] [7]

A Magyar Tudom

Limiting distributions in simple random sampling from a finite population , author=. A Magyar Tudom. 1960 , publisher=

1960

[8] [8]

The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pages=

A combinatorial central limit theorem , author=. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics , pages=. 1951 , publisher=

work page 1951