Tumour Control Probability in Cancer Stem Cells Hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tumour control probability (TCP) is a formalism derived to compare various treatment regimens of radiation therapy, defined as the probability that given a prescribed dose of radiation, a tumour has been eradicated or controlled. In the traditional view of cancer, all cells share the ability to divide without limit and thus have the potential to generate a malignant tumour. However, an emerging notion is that only a sub-population of cells, the so-called cancer stem cells (CSCs), are responsible for the initiation and maintenance of the tumour. A key implication of the CSC hypothesis is that these cells must be eradicated to achieve cures, thus we define TCPS as the probability of eradicating CSCs for a given dose of radiation. A cell surface protein expression profile, such as CD44high/CD24low for breast cancer or CD133 for glioma, is often used as a biomarker to monitor CSCs enrichment. However, it is increasingly recognized that not all cells bearing this expression profile are necessarily CSCs, and in particular early generations of progenitor cells may share the same phenotype. Thus, due to the lack of a perfect biomarker for CSCs, we also define a novel measurable TCPCD+, that is the probability of eliminating or controlling biomarker positive cells. Based on these definitions, we use stochastic methods and numerical simulations parameterized for the case of gliomas, to compare the theoretical TCPS and the measurable TCPCD+. We also use the measurable TCP to compare the effect of various radiation protocols.
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".