Confronta i metodi

	Analisi delle cause competitive con abbinamento	Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPW / IPTW)
Campo	Epidemiologia	Inferenza causale
Famiglia	Process / pipeline	Regression model
Anno di origine	1999 (Fine-Gray model); extended to matched designs ~2010s	2000
Ideatore	Fine & Gray (subdistribution hazard model); Austin, Lee & Fine (matched competing risks framework)	Robins, Hernán & Brumback
Tipo	Observational survival analysis with matching and competing events	Causal inference weighting estimator
Fonte seminale	Fine, J. P., & Gray, R. J. (1999). A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 94(446), 496–509.	Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. A., & Brumback, B. (2000). Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology. Epidemiology, 11(5), 550-560.
Alias	matched Fine-Gray analysis, propensity-matched competing risks, matched cause-specific hazard analysis, matched subdistribution hazard analysis	IPW, IPTW, inverse probability of treatment weighting, marginal structural model weighting
Correlati	4	5
Sintesi	Matched competing risks analysis combines subject-level matching (e.g., propensity-score matching) with competing risks survival methods to estimate the cause-specific or subdistribution hazard of an event of interest while accounting for competing events that preclude the occurrence of that event. It is widely used in clinical and epidemiological observational studies where patients may die from causes other than the primary outcome of interest, and where treatment groups differ on baseline confounders.	Inverse Probability Weighting is a causal-inference method that assigns each observation a weight equal to the inverse of its probability of receiving the treatment it actually received. Introduced by Robins, Hernán and Brumback (2000) for marginal structural models, it builds a pseudo-population in which treatment is independent of measured confounders, balancing selection bias.