Spherical Cancer Models in Tumor Biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) in vitro models have been used in cancer research as an intermediate model between in vitro cancer cell line cultures and in vivo tumor. Spherical cancer models represent major 3D in vitro models that have been described over the past 4 decades. These models have gained popularity in cancer stem cell research using tumorospheres. Thus, it is crucial to define and clarify the different spherical cancer models thus far described. Here, we focus on in vitro multicellular spheres used in cancer research. All these spherelike structures are characterized by their well-rounded shape, the presence of cancer cells, and their capacity to be maintained as free-floating cultures. We propose a rational classification of the four most commonly used spherical cancer models in cancer research based on culture methods for obtaining them and on subsequent differences in sphere biology: the multicellular tumor spheroid model, first described in the early 70s and obtained by culture of cancer cell lines under nonadherent conditions; tumorospheres, a model of cancer stem cell expansion established in a serum-free medium supplemented with growth factors; tissue-derived tumor spheres and organotypic multicellular spheroids, obtained by tumor tissue mechanical dissociation and cutting. In addition, we describe their applications to and interest in cancer research; in particular, we describe their contribution to chemoresistance, radioresistance, tumorigenicity, and invasion and migration studies. Although these models share a common 3D conformation, each displays its own intrinsic properties. Therefore, the most relevant spherical cancer model must be carefully selected, as a function of the study aim and cancer type.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".