The Mann-Whitney effect is an effect measure for the order of two sample-specific outcome variables. It has the interpretation of a probability and also a connection to the area under the ROC curve. In the literature it has been considered for both ordinal and right-censored time-to-event outcomes. For both cases, the present paper introduces a distribution-free regression model that relates the Mann-Whitney effect to a linear combination of covariates. To fit the model, we develop a pseudo-observation-based procedure yielding consistent and asymptotically normal coefficient estimates. In addition, we propose bootstrap-based hypothesis tests to infer the effects of the covariates on the Mann-Whitney effect. A simulation study on the small-sample behavior of the proposed method demonstrates that the novel hypothesis tests keep up with the z-test of a Cox regression model. The new methods are used to analyze progression-free survival in breast cancer patients enrolled for the randomized phase III SUCCESS-A trial.
The formulas in (?) and (?) naturally allow for a continuity correction in the case of ties: If \hat \theta is defined by \hat \theta = \sum_{i_1=1}^{n_1} \sum_{i_2=1}^{n_2} ( 1\{T_{1i_1} > T_{2i_2}\} + 0.5 \cdot 1\{T_{1i_1} = T_{2i_2}\} )/ (n_1 n_2), it is easy to see that \tilde \theta_{i_1 i_2} = 1\{T_{1i_1} > T_{2i_2}\} + 0.5 \cdot 1\{T_{1i_1} = T_{2i_2}\}.
The definition in (?) seems to be in contrast to [efron79, p. 15] who stated that not pairs of observations should be left out but rather all observations of both samples consecutively, without such pairings. Efron’s arguments are based on two related papers [miller74, hinkley77] which both considered linear regression problems. Some authors indeed apply the one-sample jackknife to both samples consecutively, also in censored data problems; see e.g. [chang12]. On the other hand, [schewa04] proposed the two-sample jackknife as applied in (?). [chuang12] applied this type of two-sample jackknife method to the Jaccard index.
In the case of the univariate identity link function, i.e., \mu(x) = x, we have
Hence the GEE (?) takes the form
which is solved by
Here, the inverse \hat{\boldsymbol \Sigma}^{-1} is to be understood as the generalized Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of \hat{\boldsymbol \Sigma}. If the second moments of all covariates exist, \hat{\boldsymbol \Sigma} converges almost surely to
with expectation vectors \boldsymbol E_j = \text{E}(\boldsymbol Z_{j i_j}) \in \mathbb R^{p_j} and variance-covariance matrices \boldsymbol \Sigma_j = \text{var}(\boldsymbol Z_{j i_j}) \in \mathbb R^{p_j \times p_j}, j=1,2. It is easy to see that \boldsymbol \Sigma has full rank p = 1 + p_1 + p_2 whenever \boldsymbol \Sigma_1 and \boldsymbol \Sigma_2 have full ranks p_1 and p_2, respectively: First, being the limit of a sum of positive semi-definite matrices, \boldsymbol \Sigma is positive semi-definite as well; second, for all \boldsymbol x = (x_0, \boldsymbol x_1^\top , \boldsymbol x_2^\top)^\top \in \mathbb R^{1+p_1+p_2} \setminus \{\boldsymbol 0\}, and using the stochastic independence of \boldsymbol Z_{1i_1} and \boldsymbol Z_{2i_2}, it holds that
if \boldsymbol \Sigma_1 and \boldsymbol \Sigma_2 have full ranks. Hence, \boldsymbol x^\top \boldsymbol \Sigma \boldsymbol x equals zero only if \boldsymbol x_j^\top \boldsymbol \Sigma_j \boldsymbol x_j = 0, j=1,2. This is equivalent to \boldsymbol x_1 = \boldsymbol x_2 = \boldsymbol 0, implying x_0 = 0. Consequently, \boldsymbol \Sigma is positive definite and the probability that the inverse of \hat{\boldsymbol \Sigma} exists tends to one with increasing sample sizes.
At present, i.e., in the fully observable case, the parameter estimator reduces to
since \hat \theta = \sum_{i_1=1}^{n_1} \sum_{i_2=1}^{n_2} \tilde \theta_{i_1 i_2} / (n_1 n_2). Here we used the definitions
To analyze the asymptotic properties of \hat{\boldsymbol \beta}, we define
Assuming that n_1/(n_1+n_2) \to \lambda \in (0,1) as \min(n_1,n_2) \to \infty, that \text{E}(\boldsymbol Z_{j i_j}^\top \boldsymbol Z_{j i_j}) < \infty, j=1,2, and that both \boldsymbol \Omega := (1-\lambda) \boldsymbol \Omega^{(1)} + \lambda \boldsymbol \Omega^{(2)} and \boldsymbol \Sigma have full rank p, then, as \min(n_1,n_2) \to \infty,
The proof of this central limit theorem is given in Appendix ?.
In practice, this result could be used to obtain confidence regions for \boldsymbol \beta_0 after employing an estimator of the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix. A consistent estimator of \boldsymbol \Sigma was suggested above; a consistent estimator of \boldsymbol \Omega is proposed in Appendix ?.
In practice, longitudinal studies typically end after a finite time horizon, say \tau >0, before all events could have occurred. This renders the right tail of the survival functions unidentifiable. As a solution, there are mathematical approaches that allow the survival and censoring distributions to have the same (finite or infinite) support under stricter assumptions on the censoring distribution [gill83, ying89, dobler19].
One solution for the presently considered estimand \theta is to instead use \hat \theta(\tau) = - \int_0^\tau \hat S_1(u) d \hat S_2(u), which is a consistent estimator for \theta(\tau) = P(\min(T_{1i_1},\tau) > \min(T_{2i_2}, \tau)) if P(T_{2i_2}=\tau)=0. We will consider the estimand \theta(\tau) and its estimator \hat \theta(\tau) in the remainder of this paper. This is analogous to the Cox model where a time horizon \tau should be chosen before computing the maximizer of the partial likelihood.
a
(1.1) The function \mu: \mathbb R \to \mathbb R is strictly increasing and it is three times continuously differentiable;
(1.2) for each \boldsymbol \beta \in \mathbb R^p there exists the limit in probability of
denoted by f(\boldsymbol \beta), with f: \mathbb R^p \to \mathbb R being twice continuously differentiable;
(1.3) for each \boldsymbol \beta \in \mathbb R^p there exists the limit in probability of
denoted by (\nabla f)^\top, and a unique root \boldsymbol \beta_0 of \nabla f satisfying \nabla f(\boldsymbol \beta_0) = \boldsymbol 0;
(1.4) there exists a neighborhood B of \boldsymbol \beta_0 such that, for each \boldsymbol \beta \in B, the Jacobian
converges in probability to some (p \times p)-matrix - \check{\boldsymbol \Sigma}(\boldsymbol \beta), which is negative definite in \boldsymbol \beta_0 and continuous in \boldsymbol \beta_0; further assume that the convergence in probability is uniform over B;
(1.5) \sqrt{\frac{n_1n_2}{n_1+n_2}} \, \boldsymbol U(\boldsymbol \beta_0) \stackrel d \to \boldsymbol W \sim \mathcal{N}_p(\boldsymbol 0, \check{\boldsymbol \Omega}) for some (p\times p)-matrix \check{\boldsymbol \Omega}.
Let n_1, n_2 \to \infty such that \frac{n_1}{n_1+n_2} \to \lambda \in (0,1). Under Assumption 1, the solution \hat {\boldsymbol \beta} of (?)
(i) exists with a probability tending to 1,
(ii) converges to \boldsymbol \beta_0 in probability, and
(iii) satisfies
In the special case of fully observable data, \tilde \theta_{i_1i_2} = 1\{T_{1i_1} > T_{2i_2}\}, it is easy to verify Assumptions 1.2–1.5. To see this, let us assume that \mu is three times continuously differentiable and that the second moments of \boldsymbol A_{i_1i_2} and \boldsymbol A_{i_1i_2}(\tilde \theta_{i_1i_2} - \mu_{i_1 i_2}) exist for all \boldsymbol \beta \in \mathbb R^p. The postulated assumptions are then consequences of laws of large numbers and a central limit theorem for two-sample U-statistics.
For example, after noticing that \text{E}(\tilde \theta_{i_1i_2} | \boldsymbol Z_{i_1}, \boldsymbol Z_{i_2}) = \mu_{i_1i_2}, the Jacobian D \boldsymbol U(\boldsymbol \beta_0) reduces to
which converges in probability to - \boldsymbol \Sigma(\boldsymbol \beta_0) = - \text{E}(\boldsymbol A_{i_1i_2} \boldsymbol A_{i_1i_2}^\top) by the strong law of large numbers for multi-sample U-statistics, e.g., Theorem 3.2.1 in [kobo94]. It remains to assume that - \boldsymbol \Sigma(\boldsymbol \beta_0) does not have a zero eigenvalue. Similarly,
the local uniformity of the convergence in Assumption 1.4 follows from the continuous differentiability of D\boldsymbol U in \boldsymbol \beta_0 and the pointwise convergence at each \boldsymbol\beta. The existence of the stationary point \boldsymbol \beta_0 of the limiting function f is ensured by the unbiasedness of \boldsymbol U at the true \boldsymbol \beta = \boldsymbol \beta_0 and the law of large numbers, from which it follows that \boldsymbol U(\boldsymbol \beta_0) \stackrel{a.s.} {\longrightarrow} \boldsymbol 0 = \text{E}(\boldsymbol U(\boldsymbol \beta_0)) = \nabla f (\boldsymbol \beta_0). Finally, the convergence in distribution in Assumption 1.5 follows from a central limit theorem for U-statistics; cf. Theorem 4.5.1 in [kobo94].
Based on Assumption 1 and the consistency of \hat{\boldsymbol \beta} for \boldsymbol \beta_0, a consistent estimator for -\check{\boldsymbol \Sigma}(\boldsymbol \beta_0) is given by
where \hat{\boldsymbol A}_{i_1i_2} and \hat{\mu}_{i_1 i_2} are defined in the same way as {\boldsymbol A}_{i_1i_2} and {\mu}_{i_1 i_2}, respectively, with \boldsymbol \beta replaced by \hat{\boldsymbol \beta}. As in [ovpape17], we expect the limiting distribution to depend on a second derivative of the functional which produces the estimators \hat \theta based on the nonparametric estimators \hat S_1, \hat S_2. For this reason, we introduced another notation for \check{\boldsymbol \Omega}, in order to distinguish it from \boldsymbol \Omega in the uncensored case. In contrast to \check{\boldsymbol \Omega}, \boldsymbol \Omega does not depend on such second derivative. For practical applications, we propose to use a group-wise bootstrap procedure, blacki.e., randomly drawing with replacement from the original data points within each group, instead of implementing an estimator of \check{\boldsymbol \Omega}. We will pursue this approach in the simulation study in Section ? below. In the uncensored case, it is fairly straightforward to estimate \boldsymbol \Omega by an appropriate empirical estimator, as explained in Appendix ?.
We first note that the expectation of \hat {\boldsymbol\Sigma} equals
By the law of large numbers applied to each of the two samples, it is easy to see that \boldsymbol \Sigma is the almost sure limit of \hat {\boldsymbol \Sigma} (since both \boldsymbol Z_{1i} and \boldsymbol Z_{2j} have finite second moments by assumption).
Similarly, the expectation of \hat{\boldsymbol \Psi} equals
which could be slightly simplified using the independence of the two samples. Also note that the first entry equals the unconditional Mann-Whitney effect \theta. By definition, \hat{\boldsymbol \Psi} has the structure of a U-statistic which is similar to the Mann-Whitney U-statistic. As a consequence, classical theory for U-statistics (e.g., Theorem 4.5.1 of [kobo94]) in combination with Slutsky’s theorem implies that
provided that the matrix
has full rank. Here, \boldsymbol \Omega_{n_1n_2}^{-1/2} := (\boldsymbol \Omega_{n_1n_2}^{1/2})^{-1}, where the square root is defined by the positive definite matrix satisfying \boldsymbol \Omega_{n_1n_2}^{1/2} \boldsymbol \Omega_{n_1n_2}^{1/2} = \boldsymbol \Omega_{n_1n_2}. Finally, using n_1/(n_1+n_2) \to \lambda \in (0,1) as well as
the previous results combined with Slutsky’s theorem yield
as \min(n_1,n_2) \to \infty, where \boldsymbol \Omega = (1-\lambda) \boldsymbol \Omega^{(1)} + \lambda \boldsymbol \Omega^{(2)}.
Since - \check{\boldsymbol \Sigma}(\boldsymbol \beta) is negative definite and continuous in \boldsymbol \beta_0, it is also negative definite on the open ball B = B_\varepsilon(\boldsymbol \beta_0) of some radius \varepsilon > 0 around \boldsymbol \beta_0. This is because the largest eigenvalue of - \check{\boldsymbol \Sigma}(\boldsymbol \beta) changes continuously with \boldsymbol \beta. Let \varepsilon>0 be small enough so that the largest eigenvalue of all - \check{\boldsymbol \Sigma}(\boldsymbol \beta), \boldsymbol \beta \in B, is bounded away from 0, and such that the assumed uniform convergence of D\boldsymbol U to -\check{\boldsymbol \Sigma} in probability holds on B. As a consequence, the event that the biggest eigenvalue of D\boldsymbol U is negative has a probability converging to 1 as \min(n_1,n_2)\to \infty. Hence it is no restriction to consider all arguments in the remainder of this proof conditionally on the event
Using the arguments from [angi82], Appendix II, the maximum of \boldsymbol \beta \mapsto C(\boldsymbol \beta) (over the compact subset \overline{B_{\varepsilon/2}(\boldsymbol \beta_0)}, i.e., the closed ball) converges to the maximizing value of C in probability, i.e., to \boldsymbol \beta_0. Now Corollary II.2 of [angi82] implies that the maximizer \hat {\boldsymbol \beta} of C eventually lies in the open set B_{\varepsilon/2}(\boldsymbol \beta_0) in probability, i.e., it is a stationary point of \boldsymbol U. Consequently, the probability that the root of \boldsymbol U exists tends to 1. For these arguments we also used that \boldsymbol \beta_0 is the only root of \nabla f and that C converges pointwise in probability to f. In combination with Corollary II.2 of [angi82], it follows from \boldsymbol \beta_0 being the only stationary point of f that \hat{\boldsymbol \beta} exists with a probability tending to 1.
Now, applying the mean value theorem individually to each component U_k(\boldsymbol \beta), k=1, \dots, p, of \boldsymbol U(\boldsymbol \beta), there exist points \boldsymbol \beta_k on the line segment between \boldsymbol \beta_0 and \hat{\boldsymbol \beta} such that
Denote by \widetilde {D \boldsymbol U}(\hat{\boldsymbol \beta}, \boldsymbol \beta_0) the matrix consisting of the rows \nabla U_k(\boldsymbol \beta_k), k=1, \dots, p. Then, by the existence of the root \hat{\boldsymbol \beta} of \boldsymbol U, it follows that
The matrix \widetilde{D \boldsymbol U}(\hat{\boldsymbol \beta}, \boldsymbol \beta_0) is invertible due to conditioning on the set D_{n_1n_2}(\varepsilon). The uniform convergence of D \boldsymbol U to - \check{ \boldsymbol \Sigma} in probability over B_{\varepsilon/2}(\boldsymbol \beta_0) and the continuity of the limit in \boldsymbol \beta_0 yield \widetilde{D \boldsymbol U}(\hat{\boldsymbol \beta}, \boldsymbol \beta_0) \stackrel p \to - \check{ \boldsymbol \Sigma}(\boldsymbol \beta_0). Combining these arguments, using the assumed central limit theorem for \boldsymbol U(\boldsymbol \beta_0) postulated in Assumption 1.5, and using Slutsky’s theorem, we obtain
as \min(n_1,n_2) \to \infty, with the claimed multivariate normal distribution.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2601.15880v3 by Dennis Dobler, Alina Schenk and Matthias Schmid, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2601/2601.15880.jsonl.