ArticlePLoS computational biology2014
Classical mathematical models for description and prediction of experimental tumor growth.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 199 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
199 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value of a Joint K-PD Model With Tumor Size Dynamics and CA-125 Kinetics in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer Patients: BOLD Phase II GINECO Study.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2025Trial
- On the Choice of Longitudinal Models for the Analysis of Antitumor Efficacy in Mouse Clinical Trials of Patient-derived Xenograft Models.Cancer research communications · 2023Trial
- Modeling the Relationship Between Exposure to Abiraterone and Prostate-Specific Antigen Dynamics in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2017Trial
- Preclinical Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling of Antibody Nanoconjugates for Breast Cancer Treatment.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2026Article
- The logarithmic phase as a therapeutic direction: evaluating pharmacological strategies against cancer progression.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Multiscale modeling of T cell exhaustion: A mathematical framework integrating continuous dynamics with spatial heterogeneity.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Systematic modeling of phenotypic drug response profiles in patient-derived organoids.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Cross-cohort projection of clinically anchored latent risk enables multi-omics interpretation without refitting.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Article
- Model-Driven Optimization of Subcutaneous Polymer Prodrugs Achieves Cancer Remission in Mice.Advanced healthcare materials · 2026Article
- Article
- Gompertz growth with a shared carrying capacity optimally simulates primary and metastatic tumor growth dynamics.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Simulating Cancer Recurrence Patterns From Post-Treatment Viable Tumor Burden Distributions.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- ViVo: A Temporal Modeling Framework That Boosts Statistical Power and Minimizes Animal Usage.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Multilayer network approaches to omics data integration in digital twins for cancer research.Frontiers in systems biology · 2026Review
- Optimizing breast cancer treatment strategies through fractional-order dynamics: A computational modeling approach.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Gaps and paths forward in cancer pharmacology and translational research.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Article
- Transition between cell states of sensitivity reveals molecular vulnerability of drug-tolerant cells.Molecular systems biology · 2025Article
139 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.