A calibration and uncertainty quantification analysis of classical, fractional and multiscale logistic models of tumour growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The validation of mathematical models of tumour growth is frequently hampered by the lack of sufficient experimental data, resulting in qualitative rather than quantitative studies. Recent approaches to this problem have attempted to extract information about tumour growth by integrating multiscale experimental measurements, such as longitudinal cell counts and gene expression data. In the present study, we investigated the performance of several mathematical models of tumour growth, including classical logistic, fractional and novel multiscale models, in terms of quantifying in-vitro tumour growth in the presence and absence of therapy. We further examined the effect of genes associated with changes in chemosensitivity in cell death rates. State-of-the-art Bayesian inference, likelihood maximisation and uncertainty quantification techniques allowed a thorough evaluation of model performance. The results suggest that the classical single-cell population model (SCPM) was the best fit for the untreated and low-dose treatment conditions, while the multiscale model with a cell death rate symmetric with the expression profile of OCT4 (SymSCPM) yielded the best fit for the high-dose treatment data. Further identifiability analysis showed that the multiscale model was both structurally and practically identifiable under the condition of known OCT4 expression profiles. Overall, the present study demonstrates that model performance can be improved by incorporating multiscale measurements of tumour growth.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".