Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:49:45.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Cancer Solvable? Towards Efficient and Ethical Biomedical Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jeff Shrager ,
Mark Shapiro  and
William Hoos
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Global Cumulative Treatment Analysis (GCTA) is a novel clinical research model combining expert knowledge, and treatment coordination based upon global information-gain, to treat every patient optimally while efficiently searching the vast space that is the realm of cancer research.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 47 , Issue 3: Biomarker Research and Validation: Current Challenges, Future Opportunities , Fall 2019 , pp. 362 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wikipedia, “Curse of Dimensionality,” available at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality> (last visited July 1, 2019).+(last+visited+July+1,+2019).>Google Scholar
Newell, A. and Simon, H. A., “Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search,” Communications of the ACM 19, no. 3 (1976): 113-126; Gardner, A., “Search: An Overview,” AI Magazine 2, no. 1 (1981): 2-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H. A., Langley, P., and Bradshaw, G. L., “Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving,” Synthese 47 (1981): 1-27; Shrager, J. and Langley, P., Eds., Computational Models of Scientific Discovery and Theory Formation (San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 1990).Google Scholar
“Treatments” are, in reality, usually complex treatment plans, including activities such as cycles of drug infusion, monitoring, additional tests, and so on. Here we will simply call these collectively “treatments.”Google Scholar
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), “Biopharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials: Impact on State Economies,” 2015; Martinez, J. “Driving Drug Innovation and Market Access: Part 1-Clinical Trial Cost Breakdown,” 2016, available at <https://www.centerpointclinicalservices.com/blog-posts/driving-drive-drug-innovation-and-market-access-part-1-clinical-trial-cost-breakdown/> (last visited July 1, 2019).+(last+visited+July+1,+2019).>Google Scholar
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., and Hancock, J. T., “Experimental Evidence of Massive-Scale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks,” PNAS 111, no. 24 (2014): 8788-8790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Two senses of the term “big” are often conflated. The sense of “big data” where, for example, Google and Facebook have enormous datasets, might more accurately be called “tall, narrow data,” wherein there are many independent observations of a few features. Put in terms of dimensionality and sample size, from earlier in the paper, there are many independent samples (“n”) for relatively few dimensions of feature space. This “tall narrow data” might be more correctly called “large n, low (or moderate) dimensionality data.” Medical data, especially at the molecular level, might better be called “short wide data,” with relatively few independent observations over a very large number of features, or, in the above parlance: “small n, high dimensionality data.” The “big data” problems that have seen success are the tall narrow ones. The short wide ones remain out of reach of current technology.Google Scholar
Karp, P. D., Billington, R., Caspi, R., Fulcher, C. A., Latendresse, M., Kothari, A., Keseler, I. M., Krummenacker, M., Midford, P. E., Ong, Q., Ong, W. K., Paley, S. M., and Subhraveti, P., “The BioCyc Collection of Microbial Genomes and Metabolic Pathways,” Briefings in Bioinformatics (2017): bbx085, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx085.Google Scholar
Shrager, J., “The Fiction of Function,” Bioinformatics 19, no. 15 (2003): 1934–1936, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetnam, C., Mocellin, S., Krauthammer, M., Knopf, N., Baertsch, R., and Shrager, J., “Prototyping a Precision Oncology 3.0 Rapid Learning Platform,” BMC Bioinformatics 19 (2018): 341, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12859-018-2374-0.Google Scholar
Sweetnam et al. note that TRs should be captured not only for the recommended treatments (tests, etc.), but also for those actions that are considered but rejected, because they are incorrect, undesirable, or infeasible. These “contra treatment rationales” (“contra-TRs”) can carry as much, or in some cases more, information than the rationale supporting the final recommendation; often the final recommendation is a safe or possible choice, whereas physicians might like to do something that may be more effective if practical barriers, such as cost or side effects, could be surmounted. Contra TRs may also represent new treatment hypotheses, possibly worthy of testing.Google Scholar
Even though reasoning based on these partial explanations would likely be imperfect, these can serve as hypothetical “creases” where the space could fold, as depicted in Figure 2. (Unless they are analytic [for example, based upon mathematical formulae], such hypothetical folds need to be treated with statistical care regarding Type I Error [False Discovery]). The present hypothesis is that such hints do more to reduce the dimensionality of the problem than they do to increase the false discovery rate.Google Scholar
Hey, S.P. and Kesselheim, A. S., “Countering Imprecision in Precision Medicine,” Science, July 29, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrager, J., “Precision Medicine: Fantasy Meets Reality,” Letters, Science 353, no. 6305 (2016).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Shrager, J., “Theoretical Issues for Global Cumulative Treatment Analysis (GCTA),” arXiv: 1308.1066v1 [stat.AP] (2013); Shrager, J. and Tenenbaum, J. M., “Rapid Learning Precision Oncology,” Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 11 (2014): 109-118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar