MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2736456990 · doi:10.1088/2057-1739/aa7dec

Predictive modeling of therapy induced secondary thyroid malignancies in childhood cancer survivors

2017· article· en· W2736456990 on OpenAlexaff
Venkata Manem, Mohammad Kohandel, David Hodgson, S. Sivaloganathan

Bibliographic record

VenueConvergent Science Physical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsFields Institute for Research in Mathematical SciencesPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThyroid cancerOncologyChemotherapyRadiation therapyMalignancyCancerInternal medicineRelative risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy are the primary modes of therapeutic intervention in current clinical practice. The price often paid for effective treatment is the development of a secondary malignancy several decades after successful treatment of the primary tumor, as a result of the mutagenic effects of the initial cancer treatments on normal cells. In this work, we employ a biologically motivated mathematical model to estimate the radiation and chemotherapy-induced relative risks of thyroid malignancies in four childhood cancer study survivors (CCSS) data sets. A sensitivity analysis is performed on various chemotherapy treatment variables to evaluate their impact on second cancer risks. Furthermore, the predictions of radiation and chemotherapy-induced relative risks of secondary thyroid malignancies using the mathematical model are compared against four clinical datasets from the CCSS cohort. Moreover, the extracted average value of growth rate of premalignant cells is 0.8175 (d−1) and the extracted chemotherapy-induced mutation rate is of the order of 10−10 (per unit of chemotherapeutic dose). In addition, our model predictions of sequential therapy induced carcinogenic risks are in line with the clinical data in secondary thyroid cancers. Our in silico risk predictions can provide insight into the impact of therapy sequencing on secondary cancer risks, while at the same time eliminating the primary tumor. These findings might potentially guide clinicians in developing optimal treatment regimens that minimize secondary cancer risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConvergent Science Physical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207