Characterizing chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and monocytopenia through mathematical modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In spite of the recent focus on the development of novel targeted drugs to treat cancer, cytotoxic chemotherapy remains the standard treatment for the vast majority of patients. Unfortunately, chemotherapy is associated with high hematopoietic toxicity that may limit its efficacy. We have previously established potential strategies to mitigate chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (a lack of circulating neutrophils) using a mechanistic model of granulopoiesis to predict the interactions defining the neutrophil response to chemotherapy and to define optimal strategies for concurrent chemotherapy/prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Here, we extend our analyses to include monocyte production by constructing and parameterizing a model of monocytopoiesis. Using data for neutrophil and monocyte concentrations during chemotherapy in a large cohort of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients, we leveraged our model to determine the relationship between the monocyte and neutrophil nadirs during cyclic chemotherapy. We show that monocytopenia precedes neutropenia by 3 days, and rationalize the use of G-CSF during chemotherapy by establishing that the onset of monocytopenia can be used as a clinical marker for G-CSF dosing post-chemotherapy. This work therefore has important clinical applications as a comprehensive approach to understanding the relationship between monocyte and neutrophils after cyclic chemotherapy with or without G-CSF support.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".