A Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Framework for Optimal Doxorubicin Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Regimens in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To mitigate the risk of neutropenia during chemotherapy treatment of triple-negative breast cancer, prophylactic and supportive therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is administered concomitant to chemotherapy. The proper timing of combined chemotherapy and G-CSF is crucial for treatment outcomes. METHODS: Leveraging our established mathematical model of neutrophil production by G-CSF, we developed quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) framework to investigate how modulating chemotherapy dose frequency and intensity can maximize antitumour effects. To establish schedules that best control tumour size while minimizing neutropenia, we combined Gompertzian tumour growth with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models of doxorubicin and G-CSF, and our QSP model of neutrophil production. RESULTS: We optimized a range of chemotherapeutic cycle lengths and dose sizes to establish regimens that simultaneously reduced tumour burden while minimizing neutropenia. Our results suggest that cytotoxic chemotherapy with doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 every 14 days provides effective control of tumour growth while mitigating neutropenic risks. CONCLUSION: This work suggests future avenues for optimal regimens of chemotherapy with prophylactic G-CSF support. Importantly, the algorithmic approach that we developed can aid in balancing the anticancer and the neutropenic effects of both drugs, and therefore contributes to rational considerations in clinical decision-making in triple-negative breast cancer.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".