Introduction
In a previous blogpost, I described how complex estimation of U-statistic variance can be simplified using a “structural component” approach introduced by Sen (1960). The structural component approach is very similar to the leave-one-out jackknife. Essentially, the idea behind both of these approaches is that we decompose the statistic into individual contributions. Here, these are referred to as “structural components,” and in the LOO jackknife, these are referred to as “pseudo-values” or sometimes “pseudo-observations.” Construction of these individual quantities differs conceptually somewhat, but in another blogpost, I discuss their one-to-one relationship for specific cases. We can then take the sample variance of these individual contributions to estimate the variance of the statistic.
Estimators for increasingly popular win measures, including the win probability, net benefit, win odds, and win ratio, are obtained using large-sample two-sample U-statistic theory. Variance estimators are complex for these measures, requiring the calculation of multiple joint probabilities.
Here, I demonstrate how variance estimation for win measures can be practically estimated in two-arm randomized trials using a structural component approach. Results and estimators are provided for the win probability, the net benefit, and the win odds. For simplicity, only a single outcome is considered. However, extension to hierarchical composite outcomes is immediate with use of an appropriate kernel function.
Continue reading Practical inference for win measures via U-statistic decomposition

![Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com \[\text{PI} = P(X < Y) + \frac{1}{2} P(X = Y)\]](https://statisticelle.com/wp-content/ql-cache/quicklatex.com-b87cefdb49e56b661dba8110b8cc58d1_l3.png)
 and the PI reduces to
 and the PI reduces to  .
. suggests an increased outcome is equally likely for subjects in the placebo and treatment group, while
 suggests an increased outcome is equally likely for subjects in the placebo and treatment group, while  suggests an increased outcome is more likely for subjects in the treatment group compared to the placebo group, and the opposite is true when
 suggests an increased outcome is more likely for subjects in the treatment group compared to the placebo group, and the opposite is true when  .
. and
 and  represent the independent outcomes in the placebo and treatment groups, respectively and an increased value of the outcome is the desired response.
 represent the independent outcomes in the placebo and treatment groups, respectively and an increased value of the outcome is the desired response. observations from each group such that treatment truly increases the outcome and the variances within each group are equal such that
 observations from each group such that treatment truly increases the outcome and the variances within each group are equal such that  .
.