Searching for Goldilocks: How Evolution and Ecology Can Help Uncover More Effective Patient-Specific Chemotherapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deaths from cancer are mostly due to metastatic disease that becomes resistant to therapy. A mainstay treatment for many cancers is chemotherapy, for which the dosing strategy is primarily limited by patient toxicity. While this MTD approach builds upon the intuitively appealing principle that maximum therapeutic benefit is achieved by killing the largest possible number of cancer cells, there is increasing evidence that moderation might allow host-specific features to contribute to success. We believe that a "Goldilocks Window" of submaximal chemotherapy will yield improved overall outcomes. This window combines the complex interplay of cancer cell death, immune activity, emergence of chemoresistance, and metastatic dissemination. These multiple activities driven by chemotherapy have tradeoffs that depend on the specific agents used as well as their dosing levels and schedule. Here we present evidence supporting the idea that MTD may not always be the best approach and offer suggestions toward a more personalized treatment regime that integrates insights into patient-specific eco-evolutionary dynamics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".