MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077768973 · doi:10.1080/10273660600968937

Derivation of the Tumour Control Probability (TCP) from a Cell Cycle Model

2006· article· en· W2077768973 on OpenAlexafffund
Andria Dawson, Thomas Hillen

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsProbability modelComputer scienceControl (management)MathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, a model for the radiation treatment of cancer which includes the effects of the cell cycle is derived from first principles. A malignant cell population is divided into two compartments based on radiation sensitivities. The active compartment includes the four phases of the cell cycle, while the quiescent compartment consists of the G 0 state. Analysis of this active‐quiescent radiation model confirms the classical interpretation of the linear quadratic (LQ) model, which is that a larger α/β ratio corresponds to a fast cell cycle, while a smaller ratio corresponds to a slow cell cycle. Additionally, we find that a large α/β ratio indicates the existence of a significant quiescent phase. The active‐quiescent model is extended as a nonlinear birth–death process in order to derive an explicit time dependent expression for the tumour control probability (TCP). This work extends the TCP formula from Zaider and Minerbo and it enables the TCP to be calculated for general time dependent treatment schedules.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Mathematical Methods in MedicineSame topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207