Proliferation Saturation Index in an adaptive Bayesian approach to predict patient-specific radiotherapy responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Radiotherapy prescription dose and dose fractionation protocols vary little between individual patients having the same tumor grade and stage. To personalize radiotherapy a predictive model is needed to simulate radiation response. Previous modeling attempts with multiple variables and parameters have been shown to yield excellent data fits at the cost of nonidentifiability and clinically unrealistic results. Materials and Methods We develop a mathematical model based on a proliferation saturation index (PSI) that is a measurement of pre-treatment tumor volume-to-carrying capacity ratio that modulates intrinsic tumor growth and radiation response rates. In an adaptive Bayesian approach, we utilize an increasing number of data points for individual patients for predicting response to subsequent radiation doses. Results Model analysis shows that using PSI as the only patient-specific parameter, model simulations can fit longitudinal clinical data with high accuracy (R 2 =0.84). By analyzing tumor response to radiation using daily CT scans early in the treatment, response to the remaining treatment fractions can be predicted after two weeks with high accuracy (c-index=0.89). Conclusion The PSI model may be suited to forecast treatment response for individual patients and offer actionable decision points for mid-treatment protocol adaptation. The presented work provides an actionable image-derived biomarker prior to and during therapy to personalize and adapt radiotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".