The underexplored links between cancer and the internal body climate: Implications for cancer prevention and treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to effectively manage and cure cancer we should move beyond the general view of cancer as a random process of genetic alterations leading to uncontrolled cell proliferation or simply a predictable evolutionary process involving selection for traits that increase cell fitness. In our view, cancer is a systemic disease that involves multiple interactions not only among cells within tumors or between tumors and surrounding tissues but also with the entire organism and its internal “milieu”. We define the internal body climate as an emergent property resulting from spatial and temporal interactions among internal components themselves and with the external environment. The body climate itself can either prevent, promote or support cancer initiation and progression (top-down effect; i.e., body climate-induced effects on cancer), as well as be perturbed by cancer (bottom-up effect; i.e., cancer-induced body climate changes) to further favor cancer progression and spread. This positive feedback loop can move the system towards a “cancerized” organism and ultimately results in its demise. In our view, cancer not only affects the entire system; it is a reflection of an imbalance of the entire system . This model provides an integrated framework to study all aspects of cancer as a systemic disease, and also highlights unexplored links that can be altered to both prevent body climate changes that favor cancer initiation, progression and dissemination as well as manipulate or restore the body internal climate to hinder the success of cancer inception, progression and metastasis or improve therapy outcomes. To do so, we need to (i) identify cancer-relevant factors that affect specific climate components, (ii) develop ‘ body climate biomarkers ’, (iii) define ‘ body climate scores ’, and (iv) develop strategies to prevent climate changes, stop or slow the changes, or even revert the changes (climate restoration).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".