Evaluation of solid tumor response to sequential treatment cycles via a new computational hybrid approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of an in silico approach that evaluates and identifies appropriate treatment protocols for individuals could help grow personalized treatment and increase cancer patient lifespans. With this motivation, the present study introduces a novel approach for sequential treatment cycles based on simultaneously examining drug delivery, tumor growth, and chemotherapy efficacy. This model incorporates the physical conditions of tumor geometry, including tumor, capillary network, and normal tissue assuming real circumstances, as well as the intravascular and interstitial fluid flow, drug concentration, chemotherapy efficacy, and tumor recurrence. Three treatment approaches-maximum tolerated dose (MTD), metronomic chemotherapy (MC), and chemo-switching (CS)-as well as different chemotherapy schedules are investigated on a real tumor geometry extracted from image. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis of effective parameters of drug is carried out to evaluate the potential of using different other drugs in cancer treatment. The main findings are: (i) CS, MC, and MTD have the best performance in reducing tumor cells, respectively; (ii) multiple doses raise the efficacy of drugs that have slower clearance, higher diffusivity, and lower to medium binding affinities; (iii) the suggested approach to eradicating tumors is to reduce their cells to a predetermined rate through chemotherapy and then apply adjunct therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".