IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/biomet/v77y2021i4p1265-1275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A class of proportional win‐fractions regression models for composite outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Lu Mao
  • Tuo Wang

Abstract

The win ratio is gaining traction as a simple and intuitive approach to analysis of prioritized composite endpoints in clinical trials. To extend it from two‐sample comparison to regression, we propose a novel class of semiparametric models that includes as special cases both the two‐sample win ratio and the traditional Cox proportional hazards model on time to the first event. Under the assumption that the covariate‐specific win and loss fractions are proportional over time, the regression coefficient is unrelated to the censoring distribution and can be interpreted as the log win ratio resulting from one‐unit increase in the covariate. U‐statistic estimating functions, in the form of an arbitrary covariate‐specific weight process integrated by a pairwise residual process, are constructed to obtain consistent estimators for the regression parameter. The asymptotic properties of the estimators are derived using uniform weak convergence theory for U‐processes. Visual inspection of a “score” process provides useful clues as to the plausibility of the proportionality assumption. Extensive numerical studies using both simulated and real data from a major cardiovascular trial show that the regression methods provide valid inference on covariate effects and outperform the two‐sample win ratio in both efficiency and robustness. The proposed methodology is implemented in the R‐package WR, publicly available from the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).

Suggested Citation

  • Lu Mao & Tuo Wang, 2021. "A class of proportional win‐fractions regression models for composite outcomes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1265-1275, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:77:y:2021:i:4:p:1265-1275
    DOI: 10.1111/biom.13382
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.13382
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/biom.13382?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Oakes, 2016. "On the win-ratio statistic in clinical trials with multiple types of event," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 103(3), pages 742-745.
    2. Tianxi Cai & Lu Tian & L. J. Wei, 2005. "Semiparametric Box–Cox power transformation models for censored survival observations," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 92(3), pages 619-632, September.
    3. Lu Mao, 2019. "On the alternative hypotheses for the win ratio," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 347-351, March.
    4. Olivier Thas & Jan De Neve & Lieven Clement & Jean-Pierre Ottoy, 2012. "Probabilistic index models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 74(4), pages 623-671, September.
    5. Xiaodong Luo & Hong Tian & Surya Mohanty & Wei Yann Tsai, 2015. "An alternative approach to confidence interval estimation for the win ratio statistic," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 139-145, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaodong Luo & Hui Quan, 2020. "Some Meaningful Weighted Log-Rank and Weighted Win Loss Statistics," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(2), pages 216-224, July.
    2. Lu Mao & KyungMann Kim & Xinran Miao, 2022. "Sample size formula for general win ratio analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(3), pages 1257-1268, September.
    3. Dennis Dobler & Markus Pauly, 2018. "Bootstrap- and permutation-based inference for the Mann–Whitney effect for right-censored and tied data," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 27(3), pages 639-658, September.
    4. Xiaodong Luo & Hong Tian & Surya Mohanty & Wei Yann Tsai, 2019. "Rejoinder to “on the alternative hypotheses for the win ratio”," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 352-354, March.
    5. Lu Mao, 2019. "On the alternative hypotheses for the win ratio," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 347-351, March.
    6. Roland A. Matsouaka & Junlong Li & Tianxi Cai, 2014. "Evaluating marker-guided treatment selection strategies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(3), pages 489-499, September.
    7. Layla Parast & Beth Ann Griffin, 2017. "Landmark estimation of survival and treatment effects in observational studies," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 161-182, April.
    8. Layla Parast & Carolyn M. Rutter, 2017. "Discussion of “A risk-based measure of time-varying prognostic discrimination for survival models,” by C. Jason Liang and Patrick J. Heagerty," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(3), pages 742-744, September.
    9. Ross L. Prentice, 2022. "On the targets of inference with multivariate failure time data," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 546-559, October.
    10. Amorim, G. & Thas, O. & Vermeulen, K. & Vansteelandt, S. & De Neve, J., 2018. "Small sample inference for probabilistic index models," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 137-148.
    11. Jentsch, Carsten & Leucht, Anne, 2014. "Bootstrapping Sample Quantiles of Discrete Data," Working Papers 14-15, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    12. Fan, Chunpeng & Zhang, Donghui, 2014. "Wald-type rank tests: A GEE approach," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-16.
    13. Debajit Chatterjee & Uttam Bandyopadhyay, 2019. "Testing in nonparametric ANCOVA model based on ridit reliability functional," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 71(2), pages 327-364, April.
    14. Edgar Brunner & Frank Konietschke & Arne C. Bathke & Markus Pauly, 2021. "Ranks and Pseudo‐ranks—Surprising Results of Certain Rank Tests in Unbalanced Designs," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(2), pages 349-366, August.
    15. Denis Agniel & Tianxi Cai, 2017. "Analysis of multiple diverse phenotypes via semiparametric canonical correlation analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1254-1265, December.
    16. Atkinson, Anthony C. & Riani, Marco & Corbellini, Aldo, 2021. "The box-cox transformation: review and extensions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103537, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Zhang, Haixiang & Huang, Jian & Sun, Liuquan, 2020. "A rank-based approach to estimating monotone individualized two treatment regimes," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    18. David Oakes, 2018. "Survival models and health sequences: discussion," Lifetime Data Analysis: An International Journal Devoted to Statistical Methods and Applications for Time-to-Event Data, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 592-594, October.
    19. Yuanyuan Shen & Tianxi Cai, 2016. "Identifying predictive markers for personalized treatment selection," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1017-1025, December.
    20. Alan Agresti & Claudia Tarantola, 2018. "Simple ways to interpret effects in modeling ordinal categorical data," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 72(3), pages 210-223, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:biomet:v:77:y:2021:i:4:p:1265-1275. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0006-341X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.