In competing-risks analyses investigators commonly compare groups by evaluating each event separately: cause-specific hazards via Cox or log-rank tests, or cumulative incidence functions (CIFs) via Gray's test or Fine–Gray regression. The author argues that this event-by-event approach can obscure a clinically relevant quantity: the relative occurrence of the event of interest versus the competing event. The generalized competing event (GCE) framework reframes inference to make that ratio the primary object of study.
On the cause-specific hazard scale the GCE contrast is the hazard ratio
omega+(t) = lambda_1(t) / lambda_2(t),
the instantaneous rate ratio between the event of interest (cause 1) and the competing event (cause 2). For omega+(t) the standard stacked Lunn–McNeil construction permits efficient estimation from a single model by jointly modeling cause-specific hazards.
The paper extends the GCE idea to two scales that describe realized incidence rather than instantaneous hazards. First, the subdistribution hazard ratio is defined as
omega˜+(t) = lambda˜_1(t) / lambda˜_2(t),
where lambda˜ denotes subdistribution hazards that govern the CIF. Second, the cumulative-incidence ratio is
rho(t) = F_1(t) / F_2(t),
interpretable as the odds that when a subject has experienced an event by time t, that event is the event of interest. These contrasts reflect different perspectives: cause-specific hazards describe instantaneous force; subdistribution and cumulative-incidence scales describe realized outcome proportions by time t.
To estimate omega˜+(t) the author proposes a stacked, risk-set-weighted extension of the Lunn–McNeil construction. This approach adapts the familiar stacked model to the subdistribution setting by using risk-set weights appropriate for subdistribution hazards. Because risk sets and censoring weights overlap between causes on the subdistribution scale, the orthogonality enjoyed by the cause-specific hazard-based omega+(t) is lost. That overlap introduces covariance contributions that must be accommodated in variance estimation and affect efficiency relative to the hazard-scale estimator.
For the cumulative-incidence ratio rho(t) estimation proceeds via jackknife pseudo-observation regression applied to the Aalen–Johansen estimator of the CIF. Pseudo-observations transform the Aalen–Johansen CIF into subject-level quantities that permit regression modeling of F_1(t) and F_2(t) and hence estimation of their ratio. As with the subdistribution approach, rho(t) estimation shares dependence across causes through the common all-cause survivor function, producing covariance terms that influence variance and efficiency.
The manuscript relates the three contrasts analytically. Under proportional cause-specific hazards, rho(t) equals omega+(t) exactly at all times. Under proportional subdistribution hazards, rho(t) equals omega˜+(t) only in the small-time limit; as time increases rho(t) tends to drift toward 1. These relationships clarify when hazard-scale or cumulative-incidence-scale contrasts coincide and when they diverge.
A central analytical point is that the orthogonality that makes omega+(t) estimable with high efficiency is not present on cumulative-incidence scales. For omega˜+(t) overlapping weighted risk sets and shared censoring weights induce covariance between components. For rho(t) the CIFs share the all-cause survival, similarly producing covariance. Each cumulative-incidence scale therefore carries an additional covariance term in its variance expression; this term bounds efficiency relative to the hazard-scale test. The author derives the corresponding variances for these contrasts to make these comparisons explicit.
The paper reports simulation studies to evaluate operating characteristics of the proposed estimators and contrasts; it also illustrates the methods on hypothetical prostate and head-and-neck cohorts. These numerical studies demonstrate the behaviors described analytically, including differences in estimation efficiency and the time-dependent relationships among omega+, omega˜+, and rho. Specific simulation settings and numerical results are reported in the full preprint.
An implementation of the described methods is provided in the gcemod R package. The author notes that all data used are available via that package, and provides code and data links in the manuscript's external-links and data/code sections.
This work is presented as a medRxiv preprint and has not undergone peer review; the author explicitly states that the results should not be used to guide clinical practice without further validation. The manuscript includes declarations that ethical guidelines were followed where applicable and that no competing interests were declared. The main contribution is methodological: extending the GCE framework to subdistribution and cumulative-incidence relative measures, deriving variance expressions that highlight covariance-induced loss of orthogonality and efficiency, and providing software to implement the estimators. The preprint includes simulations and illustrative cohort analyses to demonstrate the proposed approaches.