Model-Based Tumor Growth Dynamics and Therapy Response in a Mouse Model of De Novo Carcinogenesis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumorigenesis is a complex, multistep process that depends on numerous alterations within the cell and contribution from the surrounding stroma. The ability to model macroscopic tumor evolution with high fidelity may contribute to better predictive tools for designing tumor therapy in the clinic. However, attempts to model tumor growth have mainly been developed and validated using data from xenograft mouse models, which fail to capture important aspects of tumorigenesis including tumor-initiating events and interactions with the immune system. In the present study, we investigate tumor growth and therapy dynamics in a mouse model of de novo carcinogenesis that closely recapitulates tumor initiation, progression and maintenance in vivo. We show that the rate of tumor growth and the effects of therapy are highly variable and mouse specific using a Gompertz model to describe tumor growth and a two-compartment pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic model to describe the effects of therapy in mice treated with 5-FU. We show that inter-mouse growth variability is considerably larger than intra-mouse variability and that there is a correlation between tumor growth and drug kill rates. Our results show that in vivo tumor growth and regression in a double transgenic mouse model are highly variable both within and between subjects and that mathematical models can be used to capture the overall characteristics of this variability. In order for these models to become useful tools in the design of optimal therapy strategies and ultimately in clinical practice, a subject-specific modelling strategy is necessary, rather than approaches that are based on the average behavior of a given subject population which could provide erroneous results.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it