Asymmetric Growth of Tumor Spheroids in a Symmetric Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we studied the stability of radially symmetric growth in tumor spheroids using a reaction-diffusion model. In this model, nutrient concentration and internal pressure are local variables that implicitly relate the proliferation of cells to the growth of the tumor. The analytical solution of the governing model was presented in an orthonormal spherical harmonic basis. It was shown that the radially symmetric steady-state solution to the growth of tumor spheroids, under symmetric growth conditions, was unstable with respect to small asymmetric perturbations. Such perturbations excited the asymmetric modes of growth, which could grow in time and change the spherical configuration of the tumor. The number of such modes and their rates of growth depended on parameters such as surface tension, external energy and the rate of nutrient consumption. This analysis indicated that the spherical configuration of tumor spheroids, even under experimentally controlled symmetric growth conditions, were naturally unstable. This was confirmed by a comparison between the shapes of in vitro human glioblastoma (hGB) spheroids and the configuration of the first few asymmetric modes predicted by the model.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".