Evaluation of inverse methods for estimation of mechanical parameters in solid tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To treat cancer, knowledge of mechanical parameters can be essential. This study proposes a new approach for estimating hydraulic conductivity (k) and hydraulic conductivity ratio (α) of a living tissue, based on inverse methods, allowing tissue parameter estimation using only a limited set of measurements. First, two population-based algorithms (Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) method and conjugate gradient (CG) method) and two gradient-based algorithms (genetic algorithm (GA) and particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm) are considered, and a comparative study between these different inverse methods is performed to determine which methods have a good performance in terms of convergence rate and stability. CG method is shown to perform well in the case of noise-free input data; however, in the case of noisy input data, it fails to converge. The other three methods (LM, GA, and PSO) converge with estimation errors <10% in both noise-free and noisy input data, suggesting their utility to tackle this problem. In the second part, the effectiveness and good accuracy of these robust algorithms (LM, GA, and PSO) are validated with experimental results. The hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic conductivity ratio of a specific living tumor tissue are then estimated for mammary adenocarcinoma (R3230AC). Moreover, assuming measurement of only one-point interstitial pressure inside the tumor, the effect of the location of this one-point on estimation accuracy of hydraulic conductivity is investigated. We show that estimation errors for points measured near the surface and center of the tumor are greater than at other points.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".