ArticleStatistics in medicine2026
Predicting Win-Loss Probabilities for Composite Time-to-Event Outcomes Under The Proportional Win-Fractions Regression Model.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
For composite time-to-event outcomes, the win ratio as a relative measure ignores ties resulting from non-occurrence of events, which can obscure important context in regression settings where event rates-and hence the proportion of ties-vary over time and across covariate values. To gain a more complete understanding of covariate effects, we propose coupling the proportional win-fractions (PW) model, which specifies only the win ratio, with a time-to-first-event model (e.g., Cox model), from which the tie probability can be inferred. This combination enables prediction of time-dependent win and loss probabilities on an absolute scale for any given pair of covariate profiles, with uncertainty quantified through robust variance estimation, and facilitates inference on tie-adjusted measures such as the net benefit and win odds to complement the win ratio in evaluating effect size. Residual-based diagnostics further allow refinement of model fit through appropriate covariate specification or stratification to address potential violations of proportionality assumptions. Through simulation studies and an application to the landmark HF-ACTION trial, we demonstrate that the proposed approach provides accurate and clinically interpretable predictions when model assumptions are approximately satisfied. These predictions reveal a pattern of diminishing returns on absolute win-loss probabilities as a key baseline biomarker increases across the population despite a constant win ratio. We also show that violations of the proportional win-fractions assumption can lead to biased predictions, underscoring the importance of model diagnostics. When the primary objective is to characterize time-varying covariate effects on win-loss probabilities, more flexible modeling approaches may be warranted. In addition to a small code example in the paper, the full methodology is implemented in the WR package, available on GitHub ( https://lmaowisc.github.io/WR/) and the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.