Mechanical Forces in Tumor Growth and Treatment: Perspectives From Biology, Physics, Engineering, and Mathematical Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The progression of tumors is influenced by mechanical forces and biological elements, such as hypoxia and angiogenesis. Mechanical factors, including stress, pressure, interstitial fluid pressure, and cellular traction forces, compromise normal tissue architecture, augmenting stiffness and thus promoting tumor growth and invasion. The selective elimination of specific tumor components can reduce growth-induced mechanical stress, thereby improving therapeutic efficacy. Furthermore, stress-relief drugs have the potential in enhancing chemotherapy outcomes. In this setting, computational modeling functions as an essential tool for quantitatively elucidating the mechanical principles underlying tumor formation. These models can precisely replicate the impact of mechanical pressures on solid tumors, offering insight into the regulation of tumor behavior by these forces. Tumor growth produces mechanical forces, including compression, displacement, and deformation, leading to irregular stress patterns, expedited tumor advancement, and reduced treatment efficacy. This review analyzes the impact of mechanical forces on carcinogenesis and solid tumor proliferation, emphasizing the significance of stress alleviation in regulating tumor growth. Furthermore, we investigate the influence of mechanical forces on tumor dissemination and emphasize the promise of integrating computational modeling with force-targeted cancer therapies to improve treatment efficacy by tackling the fundamental mechanics of tumor proliferation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".