Порівняння методів

	Аналіз конкуруючих ризиків з поправкою на ризик	Зіставлення за показником схильності
Галузь	Епідеміологія	Статистика досліджень
Родина	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Рік появи	1999 (subdistribution hazard model); cause-specific hazard framework earlier	1983
Автор методу	Jason Fine and Robert Gray	Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
Тип	Regression model for time-to-event data with competing events	Method
Основоположне джерело	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.	Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
Інші назви	competing risks regression, subdistribution hazard model, cause-specific hazard analysis, Fine-Gray model	PSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Пов'язані	4	3
Підсумок	Risk-adjusted competing risks analysis extends classical survival analysis to settings where subjects can experience more than one type of terminal event, and where the occurrence of one event prevents the occurrence of another. By modelling cause-specific or subdistribution hazards while adjusting for measured confounders, the method yields unbiased estimates of the absolute probability — the cumulative incidence function — of each event type over time in the presence of competing events.	Propensity score matching (PSM) is a method for reducing confounding bias in observational studies by balancing baseline characteristics between treatment groups, simulating randomization. Developed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), it estimates the probability of receiving treatment given observed covariates, then matches or weights treated and control individuals with similar treatment probabilities. Widely used in medicine, epidemiology, and policy evaluation when randomized trials are infeasible or unethical, enabling estimation of treatment effects while controlling for selection bias.