Qualitative Optimization of Oncolytic Virotherapy and Immune Therapy Combination Treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are designed to selectively target and destroy cancer cells while sparing normal, healthy tissue. Several viruses for oncolytic virotherapy are currently developed. In this paper, we will use mathematical modeling to consider key strategies that can improve the efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy. These include the integration of immunotherapy approaches with virotherapy to amplify anti-tumor immune responses, as well as optimizing the timing, dosage, and sequencing of viral administrations. Specifically, we consider strategies that increase the burst size of the virus, immunostimulation and immunosuppression, we optimize for different weekly virus injection schedules, and we consider the combination of OV therapy with CAR-T cell therapy. A limiting factor is the availability of data. We parametrize the model from several different data sets. These, however, relate to different cancers and different experimental set up. Hence our model cannot be considered to be validated. Consequently, our results are qualitative. Our results highlight the critical importance of timing for virotherapy’s efficacy and overall success. They outline strong evidence for promising treatment scenarios that need to be further tested experimentally in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".