A computational model for the cancer field effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Cancer Field Effect describes an area of pre-cancerous cells that results from continued exposure to carcinogens. Cells in the cancer field can easily develop into cancer. Removal of the main tumor mass might leave the cancer field behind, increasing risk of recurrence. Methods: The model we propose for the cancer field effect is a hybrid cellular automaton (CA), which includes a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to compute the effects of the carcinogens on the gene expression of the genes related to cancer development. We use carcinogen interactions that are typically associated with smoking and alcohol consumption and their effect on cancer fields of the tongue. Results: Using simulations we support the understanding that tobacco smoking is a potent carcinogen, which can be reinforced by alcohol consumption. The effect of alcohol alone is significantly less than the effect of tobacco. We further observe that pairing tumor excision with field removal delays recurrence compared to tumor excision alone. We track cell lineages and find that, in most cases, a polyclonal field develops, where the number of distinct cell lineages decreases over time as some lineages become dominant over others. Finally, we find tumor masses rarely form via monoclonal origin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".