ReviewCells2024
Peto's "Paradox" and Six Degrees of Cancer Prevalence.
Review in Cells, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic Insights into Wildlife Cancer and Conservation Strategies Under the One Health Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Bioelectromagnetism for Cancer Treatment-Modulated Electro-Hyperthermia.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Review
- The Association between Breast Cup Size and Breast Cancer Incidence: Insights from a Global Dataset.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peto's paradox and the epidemiologic observation of the average six degrees of tumor prevalence are studied and hypothetically solved. A simple consideration, Petho's paradox challenges our intuitive understanding of cancer risk and prevalence. Our simple consideration is that the more a cell divides, the higher the chance of acquiring cancerous mutations, and so the larger or longer-lived organisms have more cells and undergo more cell divisions over their lifetime, expecting to have a higher risk of developing cancer. Paradoxically, it is not supported by the observations. The allometric scaling of species could answer the Peto paradox. Another paradoxical human epidemiology observation in six average mutations is necessary for cancer prevalence, despite the random expectations of the tumor causes. To solve this challenge, game theory could be applied. The inherited and random DNA mutations in the replication process nonlinearly drive cancer development. The statistical variance concept does not reasonably describe tumor development. Instead, the Darwinian natural selection principle is applied. The mutations in the healthy organism's cellular population can serve the species' evolutionary adaptation by the selective pressure of the circumstances. Still, some cells collect multiple uncorrected mutations, adapt to the extreme stress in the stromal environment, and develop subclinical phases of cancer in the individual. This process needs extensive subsequent DNA replications to heritage and collect additional mutations, which are only marginal alone. Still, together, they are preparing for the first stage of the precancerous condition. In the second stage, when one of the caretaker genes is accidentally mutated, the caused genetic instability prepares the cell to fight for its survival and avoid apoptosis. This can be described as a competitive game. In the third stage, the precancerous cell develops uncontrolled proliferation with the damaged gatekeeper gene and forces the new game strategy with binary cooperation with stromal cells for alimentation. In the fourth stage, the starving conditions cause a game change again, starting a cooperative game, where the malignant cells cooperate and force the cooperation of the stromal host, too. In the fifth stage, the resetting of homeostasis finishes the subclinical stage, and in the fifth stage, the clinical phase starts. The prevention of the development of mutated cells is more complex than averting exposure to mutagens from the environment throughout the organism's lifetime. Mutagenic exposure can increase the otherwise random imperfect DNA reproduction, increasing the likelihood of cancer development, but mutations exist. Toxic exposure is more challenging; it may select the tolerant cells on this particular toxic stress, so these mutations have more facility to avoid apoptosis in otherwise collected random mutational states.
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.