MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916256071 · doi:10.1101/563130

Harnessing patient-specific response dynamics to optimize evolutionary therapies for metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma – Learning to adapt

2019· preprint· en· W2916256071 on OpenAlexaff
Inmaculada C. Sorribes, Amrita Basu, Pedro M. Enríquez‐Navas, Xu Feng, Jakob Nikolas Kather, Niveditha Nerlakanti, RJ Stephens, Maximilian Strobl, Iman Tavassoly, Noemi Vitos, Dawn Lemanne, Brandon J. Manley, Cliona O’Farrelly, Heiko Enderling

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenal cell carcinomaBiomarkerIn silicoImmune systemMedicineVirtual patientComputational biologyOncologyBioinformaticsComputer scienceBiologyImmunologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the ten most common and lethal cancers in the United States. Tumor heterogeneity and development of resistance to treatment suggest that patient-specific evolutionary therapies may hold the key to better patients prognosis. Mathematical models are a powerful tool to help develop such strategies; however, they depend on reliable biomarker information. In this paper, we present a dynamic model of tumor-immune interactions, as well as the treatment effect on tumor cells and the tumor-immune environment. We hypothesize that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a powerful biomarker that can be used to predict an individual patient’s response to treatment. Using randomly sampled virtual patients, we show that the model recapitulates patient outcomes from clinical trials in RCC. Finally, we use in silico patient data to recreate realistic tumor behaviors and simulate various treatment strategies to find optimal treatments for each virtual patient.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207