A new perspective on tumor progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumorigenesis is commonly attributed to Darwinian processes involving natural selection among cells and groups of cells. However, progressing tumors are those that also achieve an appropriate group phenotypic composition (GPC). Yet, the selective processes acting on tumor GPCs are distinct from that associated with classical Darwinian evolution (i.e. natural selection based on differential reproductive success) as tumors are not genuine evolutionary individuals and do not exhibit heritable variation in fitness. This complex evolutionary scenario is analogous to the recently proposed concept of 'selection for function' invoked for the evolution of both living and non-living systems. Therefore, we argue that it is inaccurate to assert that Darwinian processes alone account for all the aspects characterizing tumorigenesis and cancer progression; rather, by producing the genetic and phenotypic diversity required for creating novel GPCs, these processes fuel the evolutionary success of tumors that is dependent on selection for function at the tumor level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".