arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2604.18341

Statistical inference with win statistics in cluster-randomized trials with composite outcomes

Xi Fang·Guangyu Tong·Yuan Huang·F. Perry Wilson·Patrick J. Heagerty·Fan Li
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Win statistics have become increasingly popular for analyzing hierarchical composite endpoints in clinical trials, because they summarize treatment benefit through pairwise comparisons that respect the clinical importance order among outcome components. The win ratio, win odds, net benefit, and desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) are all based on the same underlying pairwise comparison methodology and can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect. Despite recent progress on win statistics, statistical inference for win statistics in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) remains underdeveloped. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of testing procedures for the win ratio, win odds, net benefit, and DOOR in parallel-arm CRTs with hierarchical composite outcomes. Then based on each win statistic, we compare different testing procedures, including Wald tests based on cluster rank sum statistics and bivariate clustered U-statistics, tests that use a cluster jackknife variance, a score permutation test, a permutation based procedure with analytical variance estimation, and likelihood ratio test derived from clustered jackknife estimates. Through simulation studies that consider varying scenarios such as different cluster sizes, intracluster correlations, and censoring-induced ties, we characterize the finite-sample type I error and power of each procedure across a range of practical settings with small and large numbers of clusters.We illustrate our methods by reanalyzing the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) pragmatic CRT, and implement all win statistics methods in the WinsCRT R package.

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Xi Fang, Guangyu Tong, Yuan Huang, F. Perry Wilson, Patrick J. Heagerty, Fan Li. 2026-04-20. Statistical inference with win statistics in cluster-randomized trials with composite outcomes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.18341

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗