↓ Skip to main content

Classical Mathematical Models for Description and Prediction of Experimental Tumor Growth

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
440 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Classical Mathematical Models for Description and Prediction of Experimental Tumor Growth
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003800
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sébastien Benzekry, Clare Lamont, Afshin Beheshti, Amanda Tracz, John M. L. Ebos, Lynn Hlatky, Philip Hahnfeldt

Abstract

Despite internal complexity, tumor growth kinetics follow relatively simple laws that can be expressed as mathematical models. To explore this further, quantitative analysis of the most classical of these were performed. The models were assessed against data from two in vivo experimental systems: an ectopic syngeneic tumor (Lewis lung carcinoma) and an orthotopically xenografted human breast carcinoma. The goals were threefold: 1) to determine a statistical model for description of the measurement error, 2) to establish the descriptive power of each model, using several goodness-of-fit metrics and a study of parametric identifiability, and 3) to assess the models' ability to forecast future tumor growth. The models included in the study comprised the exponential, exponential-linear, power law, Gompertz, logistic, generalized logistic, von Bertalanffy and a model with dynamic carrying capacity. For the breast data, the dynamics were best captured by the Gompertz and exponential-linear models. The latter also exhibited the highest predictive power, with excellent prediction scores (≥80%) extending out as far as 12 days in the future. For the lung data, the Gompertz and power law models provided the most parsimonious and parametrically identifiable description. However, not one of the models was able to achieve a substantial prediction rate (≥70%) beyond the next day data point. In this context, adjunction of a priori information on the parameter distribution led to considerable improvement. For instance, forecast success rates went from 14.9% to 62.7% when using the power law model to predict the full future tumor growth curves, using just three data points. These results not only have important implications for biological theories of tumor growth and the use of mathematical modeling in preclinical anti-cancer drug investigations, but also may assist in defining how mathematical models could serve as potential prognostic tools in the clinic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 371 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 24%
Researcher 67 18%
Student > Bachelor 46 12%
Student > Master 37 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 4%
Other 51 13%
Unknown 72 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 58 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 47 12%
Mathematics 41 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 7%
Other 83 22%
Unknown 88 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,812,490
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#1,589
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,374
of 247,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#23
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.