A Mathematical Model for the Immune-Mediated Theory of Metastasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accumulating experimental and clinical evidence suggest that the immune response to cancer is not exclusively anti -tumor. Indeed, the pro -tumor roles of the immune system — as suppliers of growth and pro-angiogenic factors or defenses against cytotoxic immune attacks, for example — have been long appreciated, but relatively few theoretical works have considered their effects. Inspired by the recently proposed “immune-mediated” theory of metastasis, we develop a mathematical model for tumor-immune interactions at two anatomically distant sites, which includes both anti -and pro -tumor immune effects, and the experimentally observed tumor-induced phenotypic plasticity of immune cells (tumor “education” of the immune cells). Upon confrontation of our model to experimental data, we use it to evaluate the implications of the immune-mediated theory of metastasis. We find that tumor education of immune cells may explain the relatively poor performance of immunotherapies, and that many metastatic phenomena, including metastatic blow-up, dormancy, and metastasis to sites of injury, can be explained by the immune-mediated theory of metastasis. Our results suggest that further work is warranted to fully elucidate the protumor effects of the immune system in metastatic cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".