MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396779536 · doi:10.1016/j.jconrel.2024.05.004

Image-based predictive modelling frameworks for personalised drug delivery in cancer therapy

2024· article· en· W4396779536 on OpenAlexaff
Ajay Bhandari, Boram Gu, Farshad Moradi Kashkooli, Wenbo Zhan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Controlled Release · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsDrug deliveryComputer scienceModalitiesRisk analysis (engineering)Medical physicsMedicineNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personalised drug delivery enables a tailored treatment plan for each patient compared to conventional drug delivery, where a generic strategy is commonly employed. It can not only achieve precise treatment to improve effectiveness but also reduce the risk of adverse effects to improve patients' quality of life. Drug delivery involves multiple interconnected physiological and physicochemical processes, which span a wide range of time and length scales. How to consider the impact of individual differences on these processes becomes critical. Multiphysics models are an open system that allows well-controlled studies on the individual and combined effects of influencing factors on drug delivery outcomes while accommodating the patient-specific in vivo environment, which is not economically feasible through experimental means. Extensive modelling frameworks have been developed to reveal the underlying mechanisms of drug delivery and optimise effective delivery plans. This review provides an overview of currently available models, their integration with advanced medical imaging modalities, and code packages for personalised drug delivery. The potential to incorporate new technologies (i.e., machine learning) in this field is also addressed for development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Controlled ReleaseSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207