Circadian and Immunity Cycle Talk in Cancer Destination: From Biological Aspects to In Silico Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is the leading cause of death and a major problem to increasing life expectancy worldwide. In recent years, various approaches such as surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, targeted therapies, and the newest pillar, immunotherapy, have been developed to treat cancer. Among key factors impacting the effectiveness of treatment, the administration of drugs based on the circadian rhythm in a person and within individuals can significantly elevate drug efficacy, reduce adverse effects, and prevent drug resistance. Circadian clocks also affect various physiological processes such as the sleep cycle, body temperature cycle, digestive and cardiovascular processes, and endocrine and immune systems. In recent years, to achieve precision patterns for drug administration using computational methods, the interaction of the effects of drugs and their cellular pathways has been considered more seriously. Integrated data-derived pathological images and genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics analyses have provided an understanding of the molecular basis of cancer and dramatically revealed interactions between circadian and immunity cycles. Here, we describe crosstalk between the circadian cycle signaling pathway and immunity cycle in cancer and discuss how tumor microenvironment affects the influence on treatment process based on individuals' genetic differences. Moreover, we highlight recent advances in computational modeling that pave the way for personalized immune chronotherapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".