Delaying Cancer Progression by Integrating Toxicity Constraints in a Model of Adaptive Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cancer therapies often fail when intolerable toxicity or drug-resistant cancer cells undermine otherwise effective treatment strategies. Over the past decade, adaptive therapy has emerged as a promising approach to postpone emergence of resistance by altering dose timing based on tumor burden thresholds. Despite encouraging results, these protocols often overlook the crucial role of toxicity-induced treatment breaks, which may permit tumor regrowth. Herein, we explore the following question: would incorporating toxicity feedback improve or hinder the efficacy of adaptive therapy? To address this question, we propose a mathematical framework for incorporating toxic feedback into treatment design. We find that the degree of competition between sensitive and resistant populations, along with the growth rate of resistant cells, critically modulates the impact of toxicity feedback on time to progression. Further, our model identifies circumstances where strategic treatment breaks, which may be based on either tumor size or toxicity, can mitigate overtreatment and extend time to progression, both at the baseline parameterization and across a heterogeneous virtual population. Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of integrating toxicity considerations into the design of adaptive therapy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".