MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251575160 · doi:10.1177/117693510600200003

Tumor Growth Rate Approximation-Assisted Estimation

2006· article· en· W4251575160 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Informatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStochastic processes and statistical mechanics
Canadian institutionsInnovation, Science and Economic Development CanadaUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorEstimationGrowth rateStatisticsBenchmark (surveying)MathematicsComputer scienceEconometricsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From tumor to tumor, there is a great variation in the proportion of cancer cells growing and making daughter cells that ultimately metastasize. The differential growth within a single tumor, however, has not been studied extensively and this may be helpful in predicting the aggressiveness of a particular cancer type. The estimation problem of tumor growth rates from several populations is studied. The baseline growth rate estimator is based on a family of interacting particle system models which generalize the linear birth process as models of tumor growth. These interacting models incorporate the spatial structure of the tumor in such a way that growth slows down in a crowded system. Approximation-assisted estimation strategy is proposed when initial values of rates are known from the previous study. Some alternative estimators are suggested and the relative dominance picture of the proposed estimator to the benchmark estimator is investigated. An over-riding theme of this article is that the suggested estimation method extends its traditional counterpart to non-normal populations and to more realistic cases.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.276 · 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