MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307777878 · doi:10.1007/s11538-022-01086-4

The Tumor Invasion Paradox in Cancer Stem Cell-Driven Solid Tumors

2022· article· en· W4307777878 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra Shyntar, Ashna Patel, Meghan Rhodes, Heiko Enderling, Thomas Hillen

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Mathematical Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaUniversities Space Research AssociationMoffitt Cancer Center
KeywordsSolid tumorStem cellCancer researchCancer stem cellBiologyCancerChemistryCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are key in understanding tumor growth and tumor progression. A counterintuitive effect of CSCs is the so-called tumor growth paradox: the effect where a tumor with a higher death rate may grow larger than a tumor with a lower death rate. Here we extend the modeling of the tumor growth paradox by including spatial structure and considering cancer invasion. Using agent-based modeling and a corresponding partial differential equation model, we demonstrate and prove mathematically a tumor invasion paradox: a larger cell death rate can lead to a faster invasion speed. We test this result on a generic hypothetical cancer with typical growth rates and typical treatment sensitivities. We find that the tumor invasion paradox may play a role for continuous and intermittent treatments, while it does not seem to be essential in fractionated treatments. It should be noted that no attempt was made to fit the model to a specific cancer, thus, our results are generic and theoretical.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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 venueBulletin of Mathematical BiologySame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207