Predicting intratumoral fluid pressure and liposome accumulation using physics informed deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liposome-based anticancer agents take advantage of the increased vascular permeability and transvascular pressure gradients for selective accumulation in tumors, a phenomenon known as the enhanced permeability and retention(EPR) effect. The EPR effect has motivated the clinical use of nano-therapeutics, with mixed results on treatment outcome. High interstitial fluid pressure (IFP) has been shown to limit liposome drug delivery to central tumour regions. Furthermore, high IFP is an independent prognostic biomarker for treatment efficacy in radiation therapy and chemotherapy for some solid cancers. Therefore, accurately measuring spatial liposome accumulation and IFP distribution within a solid tumour is crucial for optimal treatment planning. In this paper, we develop a model capable of predicting voxel-by-voxel intratumoral liposome accumulation and IFP using pre and post administration imaging. Our approach is based on physics informed machine learning, a novel technique combining machine learning and partial differential equations. through application to a set of mouse data and a set of synthetically-generated tumours, we show that our approach accurately predicts the spatial liposome accumulation and IFP for an individual tumour while relying on minimal information. This is an important result with applications for forecasting tumour progression and designing 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".