Paper detail

Estimating the effect of lymphovascular invasion on 2-year survival probability under endogeneity: a recursive copula-based approach

Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is an important prognostic marker for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC), but the true effect of LVI on survival may be distorted by endogeneity arising from unmeasured confounding. Conventional one-stage conditional models and instrument-based two-stage estimators are prone to bias under endogeneity, and sufficiently strong instruments are often unavailable in practice. To address these challenges, we propose a semiparametric recursive copula framework that jointly specifies marginal models for both LVI, treated as an endogenous exposure, and a binary 2-year survival outcome, and links them through a flexible copula to account for latent confounding and accommodate censoring without requiring strong instruments. In two simulation studies, we systematically varied sample sizes, censoring rates from 0% to 60%, and endogeneity strengths, and assessed robustness under moderate model misspecification. The proposed copula framework exhibited reduced bias and improved interval coverage compared with both one-stage and two-stage approaches while maintaining robustness to moderate misspecification. We applied the method to HNSC cases with associated clinical and microRNA data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 215), and found that LVI significantly reduced 2-year survival probability by approximately 47%, with a 95% confidence interval of -0.61 to -0.29 on the probability scale. The estimated positive dependence parameter indicates that the attenuation is driven by residual dependence between unobserved components of LVI and survival. Overall, the proposed copula framework yields more credible effect estimates for survival outcomes in the absence of strong instruments, mitigating biases due to endogeneity and censoring and strengthening quantitative evidence for HNSC research.

preprint2026arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.