MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975742490 · doi:10.1038/aja.2011.155

Mathematically modelling and controlling prostate cancer under intermittent hormone therapy

2012· review· en· W1975742490 on OpenAlex
Yoshito Hirata, Gouhei Tanaka, Nicholas Bruchovsky, Kazuyuki Aihara

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Andrology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCouncil for Science and Technology Policy
KeywordsAndrogen suppressionProstate cancerAndrogenMedicineScheduleHormone therapyHormoneProstateCancerOncologyBioinformaticsInternal medicineComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, we summarize our recently developed mathematical models that predict the effects of intermittent androgen suppression therapy on prostate cancer (PCa). Although hormone therapy for PCa shows remarkable results at the beginning of treatment, cancer cells frequently acquire the ability to grow without androgens during long-term therapy, resulting in an eventual relapse. To circumvent hormone resistance, intermittent androgen suppression was investigated as an alternative treatment option. However, at the present time, it is not possible to select an optimal schedule of on- and off-treatment cycles for any given patient. In addition, clinical trials have revealed that intermittent androgen suppression is effective for some patients but not for others. To resolve these two problems, we have developed mathematical models for PCa under intermittent androgen suppression. The mathematical models not only explain the mechanisms of intermittent androgen suppression but also provide an optimal treatment schedule for the on- and off-treatment periods.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it