Computational model of CAR T-cell immunotherapy dissects and predicts leukemia patient responses at remission, resistance, and relapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Adaptive CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell transfer has become a promising treatment for leukemia. Although patient responses vary across different clinical trials, reliable methods to dissect and predict patient responses to novel therapies are currently lacking. Recently, the depiction of patient responses has been achieved using in silico computational models, with prediction application being limited. Methods We established a computational model of CAR T-cell therapy to recapitulate key cellular mechanisms and dynamics during treatment with responses of continuous remission (CR), non-response (NR), and CD19-positive (CD19 + ) and CD19-negative (CD19 − ) relapse. Real-time CAR T-cell and tumor burden data of 209 patients were collected from clinical studies and standardized with unified units in bone marrow. Parameter estimation was conducted using the stochastic approximation expectation maximization algorithm for nonlinear mixed-effect modeling. Results We revealed critical determinants related to patient responses at remission, resistance, and relapse. For CR, NR, and CD19 + relapse, the overall functionality of CAR T-cell led to various outcomes, whereas loss of the CD19 + antigen and the bystander killing effect of CAR T-cells may partly explain the progression of CD19 − relapse. Furthermore, we predicted patient responses by combining the peak and accumulated values of CAR T-cells or by inputting early-stage CAR T-cell dynamics. A clinical trial simulation using virtual patient cohorts generated based on real clinical patient datasets was conducted to further validate the prediction. Conclusions Our model dissected the mechanism behind distinct responses of leukemia to CAR T-cell therapy. This patient-based computational immuno-oncology model can predict late responses and may be informative in clinical treatment and management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".