Combining hypoxia-activated prodrugs and radiotherapy in silico: Impact of treatment scheduling and the intra-tumoural oxygen landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoxia-activated prodrugs (HAPs) present a conceptually elegant approach to not only overcome, but better yet, exploit intra-tumoural hypoxia. Despite being successful in vitro and in vivo, HAPs are yet to achieve successful results in clinical settings. It has been hypothesised that this lack of clinical success can, in part, be explained by the insufficiently stringent clinical screening selection of determining which tumours are suitable for HAP treatments. Taking a mathematical modelling approach, we investigate how tumour properties and HAP-radiation scheduling influence treatment outcomes in simulated tumours. The following key results are demonstrated in silico: (i) HAP and ionising radiation (IR) monotherapies may attack tumours in dissimilar, and complementary, ways. (ii) HAP-IR scheduling may impact treatment efficacy. (iii) HAPs may function as IR treatment intensifiers. (iv) The spatio-temporal intra-tumoural oxygen landscape may impact HAP efficacy. Our in silico framework is based on an on-lattice, hybrid, multiscale cellular automaton spanning three spatial dimensions. The mathematical model for tumour spheroid growth is parameterised by multicellular tumour spheroid (MCTS) data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".