A Law of Redundancy Compounds the Problem of Cancer and Precision Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetics and molecular biology research have progressed for over a century; however, no laws of biology resembling those of physics have been identified, despite the expectations of some physicists. It may be that it is not the properties of matter alone but evolved properties of matter in combination with atomic physics and chemistry that gave rise to the origin and complexity of life. It is proposed that any law of biology must also be a product of evolution that co-evolved with the origin and progression of life. It was suggested that molecular complexity and redundancy exponentially increase over time and have the following relationship: DNA sequence complexity (Cd) < molecular complexity (Cm) < phenotypic complexity (Cp). This study presents a law of redundancy, which together with the law of complexity, is proposed as an evolutionary law of biology. Molecular complexity and redundancy are inseparable aspects of biochemical pathways, and molecular redundancy provides the first line of defense against environmental challenges, including those of deleterious mutations. Redundancy can create problems for precision medicine because in addition to the issues arising from the involvement of multiple genes, redundancy arising from alternate pathways between genotypes and phenotypes can complicate gene detection for complex diseases and mental disorders. This study uses cancer as an example to show how cellular complexity, molecular redundancy, and hidden variation affect the ability of cancer cells to evolve and evade detection and elimination. Characterization of alternate biochemical pathways or "escape routes" can provide a step in the fight against cancer.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".