Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer treatment optimizations select the most optimum combinations of drugs, sequencing schedules, and appropriate doses that would limit toxicity and yield an improved patient quality of life. However, these optimizations often lack an adequate consideration of cancer's near-infinite potential for evolutionary adaptation to therapeutic interventions. Adapting cancer therapy based on monitored tumor burden and clonal composition is an intuitively sound approach to the treatment of cancer as an inherently complex and adaptive system. The adaptation would be driven by clinical outcome setpoints embodying the aims to thwart therapeutic resistance and maintain a long-term management of the disease or even a cure. However, given the nonlinear, stochastic dynamics of tumor response to therapeutic interventions, adaptive therapeutic strategies may at least need a one-step-ahead prediction of tumor burden to maintain their control over tumor growth dynamics. The article explores the feasibility of adaptive cancer treatment driven by tumor state feedback assuming cell adaptive fitness to be the underlying source of phenotypic plasticity and pathway entropy as a biomarker of tumor growth trajectory. The exploration is undertaken using deterministic and stochastic models of tumor growth dynamics.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it