A New Fuzzy Reinforcement Learning Method for Effective Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key challenge for drug dosing schedules is the ability to learn an optimal control policy even when there is a paucity of accurate information about the systems. Artificial intelligence has great potential for shaping a smart control policy for the dosage of drugs for any treatment. Motivated by this issue, in the present research paper a Caputo–Fabrizio fractional-order model of cancer chemotherapy treatment was elaborated and analyzed. A fix-point theorem and an iterative method were implemented to prove the existence and uniqueness of the solutions of the proposed model. Afterward, in order to control cancer through chemotherapy treatment, a fuzzy-reinforcement learning-based control method that uses the State-Action-Reward-State-Action (SARSA) algorithm was proposed. Finally, so as to assess the performance of the proposed control method, the simulations were conducted for young and elderly patients and for ten simulated patients with different parameters. Then, the results of the proposed control method were compared with Watkins’s Q-learning control method for cancer chemotherapy drug dosing. The results of the simulations demonstrate the superiority of the proposed control method in terms of mean squared error, mean variance of the error, and the mean squared of the control action—in other words, in terms of the eradication of tumor cells, keeping normal cells, and the amount of usage of the drug during chemotherapy treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".