Dynamical behavior-based approach for the evaluation of treatment efficacy: The case of immuno-oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sophistication of mathematical models in the pharmacological context reflects the progress being made in understanding physiological, pharmacological, and disease relationships. This progress has illustrated once more the need for advanced quantitative tools able to efficiently extract information from these models. While dynamical systems theory has a long history in the analysis of systems biology models, as emphasized under the dynamical disease concept by Mackey and Glass [Science 197, 287-289 (1977)], its adoption in pharmacometrics is only at the beginning [Chae, Transl. Clin. Pharmacol. 28, 109 (2020)]. Using a quantitative systems pharmacology model of tumor immune dynamics as a case study [Kosinsky et al., J. Immunother. Cancer 6, 17 (2018)], we here adopt a dynamical systems analysis to describe, in an exhaustive way, six different statuses that refer to the response of the system to therapy, in the presence or absence of a tumor-free attractor. To evaluate the therapy success, we introduce the concept of TBA, related to the Time to enter the tumor-free Basin of Attraction, and corresponding to the earliest time at which the therapy can be stopped without jeopardizing its efficacy. TBA can determine the optimal time to stop drug administration and consequently quantify the reduction in drug exposure.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".