Comparison of α/β estimates from homogeneous (individual) and heterogeneous (population) tumor control models for early stage prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiobiological parameter estimates for prostate cancer are obtained from both a homogeneous (individual) and heterogeneous (population) tumor control model based on Poisson statistics and the linear quadratic model of cell survival. Parameter estimates for both models are highly correlated: statistically equivalent fits are achievable using either (1) linear quadratic (LQ) parameters with low numbers of radioresistant tumor stem cells, or (2) LQ parameters with corresponding larger number of radiosensitive tumor stem cells. A theoretical framework is developed to explain this correlation. A Monte Carlo error analysis based on binomial statistics is used to estimate confidence intervals for all parameter estimates. It was found that both the homogeneous and heterogeneous models produce approximately equivalent estimates of radiobiological parameters, including the alpha/beta ratio. However, the 95% confidence interval for the alpha/beta ratio derived from the heterogeneous model are considerably larger than those derived from the homogeneous model, which indicate the homogeneous model overestimates the statistical significance of the alpha/beta estimate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".