Formalizing an Integrative, Multidisciplinary Cancer Therapy Discovery Workflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many clinicians and researchers work to understand cancer, there has been limited success to effectively combine forces and collaborate over time, distance, data, and budget constraints. Here we present a workflow template for multidisciplinary cancer therapy that was developed during the 2nd Annual Workshop on Cancer Systems Biology sponsored by Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, in July 2012. The template was applied to the development of a metronomic therapy backbone for neuroblastoma. Three primary groups were identified: clinicians, biologists, and quantitative scientists (mathematicians, computer scientists, and engineers). The workflow described their integrative interactions; parallel or sequential processes; data sources and computational tools at different stages as well as the iterative nature of therapeutic development from clinical observations to in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials. We found that theoreticians in dialog with experimentalists could develop calibrated and parameterized predictive models that inform and formalize sets of testable hypotheses, thus speeding up discovery and validation while reducing laboratory resources and costs. The developed template outlines an interdisciplinary collaboration workflow designed to systematically investigate the mechanistic underpinnings of a new therapy and validate that therapy to advance development and clinical acceptance.
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 | 0.037 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".