A review of mechanistic learning in mathematical oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanistic learning, the synergistic combination of knowledge-driven and data-driven modeling, is an emerging field. In particular, in mathematical oncology, the application of mathematical modeling to cancer biology and oncology, the use of mechanistic learning is growing. This review aims to capture the current state of the field and provide a perspective on how mechanistic learning may further progress in mathematical oncology. We highlight the synergistic potential of knowledge-driven mechanistic mathematical modeling and data-driven modeling, such as machine and deep learning. We point out similarities and differences regarding model complexity, data requirements, outputs generated, and interpretability of the algorithms and their results. Then, organizing combinations of knowledge- and data-driven modeling into four categories (sequential, parallel, intrinsic, and extrinsic mechanistic learning), we summarize a variety of approaches at the interface between purely data- and knowledge-driven models. Using examples predominantly from oncology, we discuss a range of techniques including physics-informed neural networks, surrogate model learning, and digital twins. We see that mechanistic learning, with its intentional leveraging of the strengths of both knowledge and data-driven modeling, can greatly impact the complex problems of oncology. Given the increasing ubiquity and impact of machine learning, it is critical to incorporate it into the study of mathematical oncology with mechanistic learning providing a path to that end. As the field of mechanistic learning advances, we aim for this review and proposed categorization framework to foster additional collaboration between the data- and knowledge-driven modeling fields. Further collaboration will help address difficult issues in oncology such as limited data availability, requirements of model transparency, and complex input data
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".