MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417268051 · doi:10.1103/fn8b-s7x3

From radiation dose to cellular dynamics: A discrete model for simulating cancer therapy

2025· article· en· W4417268051 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRadiation therapyProstate cancerCancerMathematical modelRadiobiologyMonte Carlo methodCancer cellRadiationProbability model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation therapy is one of the most common cancer treatments, and dose optimization and targeting of radiation are crucial since both cancerous and healthy cells are affected. Different mathematical and computational approaches have been developed for this task. The most common mathematical approach, dating back to the late 1970s, is the linear-quadratic (LQ) model for the survival probability given the radiation dose. Most simulation models consider tissue as a continuum rather than consisting of discrete cells. While reasonable for large-scale models (e.g., human organs), continuum approaches necessarily neglect cellular-scale effects, which may play a role in growth, morphology, and metastasis of tumors. Here we propose a method for modeling the effect of radiation on cells based on the mechanobiological CellSim3D simulation model for growth, division, and proliferation of cells. To model the effect of a radiation beam, we incorporate a Monte Carlo procedure into CellSim3D with the LQ model by introducing a survival probability at each beam delivery. Effective removal of dead cells by phagocytosis was also implemented. Systems with two types of cells were simulated: stiff slowly proliferating healthy cells and soft rapidly proliferating cancer cells. For model verification, the results were compared to prostate cancer (PC-3 cell line) data for different doses, and we found good agreement. In addition, we simulated proliferating systems and analyzed the probability density of the contact forces. We determined the state of the system with respect to the jamming transition and found very good agreement with experiments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207