Adaptive Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer Using Generative Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the expanding therapeutic options available to cancer patients, therapeutic resistance, disease recurrence, and metastasis persist as hallmark challenges in the treatment of cancer. The rise to prominence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in many realms of human activities is compelling the consideration of its capabilities as a potential lever to advance the development of effective cancer treatments. This article presents a hypothetical case study on the application of generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) to the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer (mPC). The case explores the design of GPT-supported adaptive intermittent therapy for mPC. Testosterone and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are assumed to be repeatedly monitored while treatment may involve a combination of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), androgen receptor-signalling inhibitors (ARSI), chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The analysis covers various questions relevant to the configuration, training, and inferencing of GPTs for the case of mPC treatment with a particular attention to risk mitigation regarding the hallucination problem and its implications to clinical integration of GenAI technologies. The case study provides elements of an actionable pathway to the realization of GenAI-assisted adaptive treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. As such, the study is expected to help facilitate the design of clinical trials of GenAI-supported cancer treatments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".