MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220895081 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009505

Chemotherapy-induced cachexia and model-informed dosing to preserve lean mass in cancer treatment

2022· article· en· W4220895081 on OpenAlexafffund
Suzan Farhang‐Sardroodi, Michael A. La Croix, Kathleen P. Wilkie

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityYork University
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsCachexiaWastingLean body massDosingChemotherapyMedicineCancerQuality of life (healthcare)Muscle massCancer treatmentOncologyInternal medicineBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although chemotherapy is a standard treatment for cancer, it comes with significant side effects. In particular, certain agents can induce severe muscle loss, known as cachexia, worsening patient quality of life and treatment outcomes. 5-fluorouracil, an anti-cancer agent used to treat several cancers, has been shown to cause muscle loss. Experimental data indicates a non-linear dose-dependence for muscle loss in mice treated with daily or week-day schedules. We present a mathematical model of chemotherapy-induced muscle wasting that captures this non-linear dose-dependence. Area-under-the-curve metrics are proposed to quantify the treatment's effects on lean mass and tumour control. Model simulations are used to explore alternate dosing schedules, aging effects, and morphine use in chemotherapy treatment with the aim of better protecting lean mass while actively targeting the tumour, ultimately leading to improved personalization of treatment planning and improved patient quality of life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207