Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks and Evolutionary Game Theory for More Personalized Cancer Treatment

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This position paper argues that combining Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks with evolutionary game theory can produce interpretable and accurate predictive models for personalized cancer treatment.

desk verdict A clearly written position paper that proposes combining KAN-ODE with evolutionary game theory, but it never specifies how the two are coupled, so the promised gains are not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07611 v1 pith:2NV46CQJ submitted 2025-01-12 cs.LG cs.NE

Sepinoud Azimi , Louise Spekking , Kateřina Staňková This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.NE
keywords Kolmogorov-ArnoldnetworksevolutionarygametheorycancertreatmentpersonalizedmedicineinterpretablemachinelearningKAN-ODEadaptivetherapy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Personalized cancer treatment needs models clinicians can trust, but standard deep learning is opaque and evolutionary game theory alone is limited in predictive power and scale. This paper proposes a hybrid framework that joins Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks, whose learnable univariate functions sit on edges instead of fixed activations on nodes, with evolutionary game theory. The intended result is a model that learns tumor dynamics directly from data, expresses them in an interpretable form, and still optimizes adaptive treatment timing and dosing. The paper is a position paper: it argues the theoretical case for this synthesis and lays out research directions, without presenting a trained or clinically validated implementation. If the argument holds, the framework would give oncologists a path from black-box predictions to explainable, patient-specific therapy planning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the KAN-ODE, a neural differential equation of the form $\frac{du}{dt} = \mathrm{KAN}(u(t), \theta)$, where the right-hand side is a Kolmogorov-Arnold Network. The network implements the representation $f(x) = \sum_{q=1}^{2n+1}\Phi_q\left(\sum_{p=1}^n \phi_{q,p}(x_p)\right)$, so the learnable pieces are univariate functions on the edges rather than fixed activations at nodes. This edge-based structure is what the paper relies on for interpretability, and the differential-equation wrapper is what lets the model describe continuous tumor dynamics and treatment response. Evolutionary game theory supplies the second half of the machinery: it defines the strategic interactions among cell types and between tumor and therapy, so that the learned dynamics can be read as an evolving multi-agent system and used to choose adaptive dosing schedules.

What would settle it

Train a KAN-ODE on longitudinal tumor measurements from patients receiving adaptive therapy for a cancer such as non-small cell lung cancer, then evaluate on a held-out cohort; the central promise fails if the learned dynamics reproduce the training data no better than a standard evolutionary-game model, or if the model's recommended treatment schedules are not at least as good as the schedules the game-theoretic model alone would choose.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the architectural properties of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks make them a natural data-driven engine for cancer dynamics, and that embedding this engine in an evolutionary-game model yields what neither component offers alone. The Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem lets a continuous multivariate function be written as a finite sum of univariate functions, so a KAN places learnable univariate functions on the edges of the network; the KAN-ODE variant turns the right-hand side of an ordinary differential equation into such a network, allowing the model to learn the hidden dynamics of tumor progression from data. Coupled with evolutionary game theory, which frames tumor cells, treatments, and the immune system as interacting strategies, the framework is claimed to predict progression and resistance while keeping the learned dynamics interpretable. The paper also claims this combination could extend adaptive therapy optimization to aggressive cancers such as non-small cell lung cancer, where game-theoretic modeling alone has struggled.

Load-bearing premise

The whole proposal rests on KAN-ODE being able to learn genuine cancer-treatment dynamics from sparse, noisy clinical data and carry that accuracy to new patients, a capacity the paper itself flags as unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If KAN-ODE can learn from sparse longitudinal data, the hybrid model could predict individual tumor response and resistance without requiring hand-built mechanistic equations.
  • The edge-based architecture could let a clinician trace a prediction back to specific learned functions, addressing the trust and regulatory hurdles that black-box models create.
  • Coupling with evolutionary game theory could extend adaptive therapy optimization, which has worked for slower-growing cancers, to more aggressive diseases such as non-small cell lung cancer.
  • The same framework is positioned as a template for other diseases with multi-agent dynamics, including neurodegenerative and autoimmune conditions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the strongest near-term test is a benchmark: train a KAN-ODE on longitudinal tumor measurements from an adaptive-therapy trial and compare its recommended doses against an evolutionary-game-only optimizer on a held-out patient cohort.
  • Beyond the paper, the interpretability claim is conditional: a learned univariate function still needs to be read, simplified, or mapped to a biological mechanism before it provides the clinician-facing explanation the paper promises.
  • Beyond the paper, the finite-sum form of the Kolmogorov-Arnold theorem may become a bottleneck with hundreds of genomic features, a scaling question the paper does not address.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a conceptual framework that merges Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs), specifically the KAN-ODE extension, with Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) for personalized cancer treatment. It reviews limitations of black-box machine learning and of standalone EGT, restates the standard KAN equations (Eqs. 1-4), mentions several KAN variants, and lists challenges and research directions. The authors explicitly characterize the work as a position paper in Section 5, stating it is intended as a starting point rather than a fully developed implementation.

Significance. If the proposed integration were rigorously specified and validated, it could contribute to interpretable, mechanism-aware models for adaptive cancer therapy. The paper is honest about open problems and cites a broad body of relevant literature. However, the central claim is purely promissory: no concrete coupled model, no training objective, no experiments, and no code are provided. The strength of the paper lies in its survey of motivations and challenges, not in any demonstrated result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (4)] The paper never specifies how EGT is coupled to KAN-ODE. Eq. (4) is the generic KAN-ODE form du/dt = KAN(u(t), θ), but the manuscript does not define the state variables u for cancer, does not write an EGT payoff or fitness function, does not state how mechanistic EGT terms enter the right-hand side, and does not give a training objective that couples the two. Without this specification, the proposed hybrid is a juxtaposition of two unrelated components rather than a model.
  2. [Abstract and Section 5] The claim that the combination 'promises to enhance predictive accuracy, scalability, and clinical usability' is unsupported by any empirical or analytical evidence. Section 5 explicitly concedes that the paper 'serves as a starting point for future research rather than presenting a fully developed implementation,' which directly undercuts the abstract's assertion of a promising hybrid approach.
  3. [Section 3, interpretability claim] The interpretability benefit is not established. A learned univariate spline on a KAN edge is not automatically a mechanistic parameter such as a fitness cost, drug-response rate, or carrying capacity; the manuscript does not provide any mapping between KAN edge functions and EGT parameters. The claim that the framework offers 'interpretable models of cancer progression' is therefore an unsupported assertion.
  4. [Section 4] The authors concede that 'there is limited empirical evidence' for the claimed mitigation of the Kolmogorov-Arnold theorem's smoothness constraints and that generalizability across clinical datasets is untested. These concessions undermine the foundational assumption that KAN-ODE can learn meaningful cancer dynamics from sparse clinical data. The paper offers no alternative evidence or argument to support this assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword 'presonalized medicine' appears to be a typo for 'personalized medicine'.
  2. [Section 1] The sentence 'paves the way a future' is grammatically incomplete and should read 'paves the way for a future'.
  3. [Section 4] The phrase 'mathematical mdoelling' contains a typo and should read 'mathematical modelling'.
  4. [References] Several references appear mismatched: reference [43] is cited for LIME and SHAP but is listed as 'Biology-guided deep learning predicts prognosis...', and reference [45] is cited for clinician hesitance but is a cancer statistics article. The citation-to-reference mapping should be verified.
  5. [Figures] Figures 1 and 2 are reproduced from prior surveys, and Figure 3 is a schematic; none of them provide implementation details or empirical results, so they should be labeled accordingly to avoid implying more content than is present.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: this is a position paper that proposes a KAN-EGT integration without fitting parameters or deriving predictions from its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper is a position/proposal paper: it contains no fitted parameters, no empirical predictions, and no derivation that reduces to its inputs. Equation (4), du/dt = KAN(u(t), theta), is quoted from the existing KAN-ODE literature as the governing model, and EGT is described at a conceptual level as a framework for tumor evolution and adaptive therapy. No equation is fitted to data and then renamed as a prediction, and no result is defined in terms of the claim it is supposed to support. The authors cite their own prior EGT work (e.g., references [26], [28]-[30], [33], [34]) as background for the value of evolutionary game theory in cancer treatment, but these citations are not the load-bearing justification for a forced choice; they are independent published contributions supporting a contextual premise. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own work, and it does not smuggle an ansatz in via self-citation. Section 4 explicitly concedes the lack of empirical validation ('Whether KAN's theoretical advantages can translate into consistent clinical outcomes is a critical question that time and research must answer') and the manuscript leaves the concrete coupling between KAN-ODE and EGT unspecified. That is an incompleteness or correctness risk, not circularity: the central claim is a research proposal, not a derivation whose conclusion is already contained in its assumptions. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on background theorems and untested domain assumptions about KAN-ODE and EGT applicability.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem guarantees that any continuous multivariate function can be represented by finite sums of univariate functions.
    Invoked in Section 3, Equation (1), as the basis for KAN architecture.
  • domain assumption KAN-ODE can learn and infer dynamics of complex biological systems from data with sufficient accuracy.
    Assumed in Section 3 when proposing KAN-ODE for cancer treatment; no empirical validation is provided.
  • domain assumption Evolutionary game theory provides a valid mechanistic description of tumor, treatment, and immune system interactions.
    Review in Section 2 relies on this premise to justify integrating EGT with KANs.
  • domain assumption The smoothness constraints of the Kolmogorov-Arnold theorem are effectively mitigated by learnable univariate functions in KANs.
    Stated as a claim in Section 4 with the paper itself noting 'limited empirical evidence' for it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks and Evolutionary Game Theory for More Personalized Cancer Treatment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NV46CQJ

@misc{pith2026250107611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks and Evolutionary Game Theory for More Personalized Cancer Treatment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NV46CQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07611}
}
read the original abstract

Personalized cancer treatment is revolutionizing oncology by leveraging precision medicine and advanced computational techniques to tailor therapies to individual patients. Despite its transformative potential, challenges such as limited generalizability, interpretability, and reproducibility of predictive models hinder its integration into clinical practice. Current methodologies often rely on black-box machine learning models, which, while accurate, lack the transparency needed for clinician trust and real-world application. This paper proposes the development of an innovative framework that bridges Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) and Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) to address these limitations. Inspired by the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem, KANs offer interpretable, edge-based neural architectures capable of modeling complex biological systems with unprecedented adaptability. Their integration into the EGT framework enables dynamic modeling of cancer progression and treatment responses. By combining KAN's computational precision with EGT's mechanistic insights, this hybrid approach promises to enhance predictive accuracy, scalability, and clinical usability.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ChemKANs for Combustion Chemistry Modeling and Acceleration

    cs.LG 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ChemKANs, a physics-structured KAN-ODE network, infer chemical kinetic models from noisy data and accelerate hydrogen-air combustion chemistry with 344 parameters at 2x speedup.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nature reviews Clinical oncology 19(2), 91–113 (2022)

    Bianchini, G., De Angelis, C., Licata, L., Gianni, L.: Treatment landscape of triple-negative breast cancer—expanded options, evolving needs. Nature reviews Clinical oncology 19(2), 91–113 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Nature medicine 25(1), 44–56 (2019)

    Topol, E.J.: High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature medicine 25(1), 44–56 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    PLoS medicine 21(8), 1004451 (2024)

    Liu, Y., Meng, X.-H., Wu, C., Su, K.-J., Liu, A., Tian, Q., Zhao, L.-J., Qiu, C., Luo, Z., Gonzalez-Ramirez, M.I., et al.: Variability in performance of genetic-enhanced dxa-bmd prediction models across diverse ethnic and geographic populations: A risk prediction study. PLoS medicine 21(8), 1004451 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Nature biomedical engineering 2(10), 719–731 (2018)

    Yu, K.-H., Beam, A.L., Kohane, I.S.: Artificial intelligence in healthcare. Nature biomedical engineering 2(10), 719–731 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 432, 117397 (2024)

    Koenig, B.C., Kim, S., Deng, S.: Kan-odes: Kolmogorov-arnold network ordi- nary differential equations for learning dynamical systems and hidden physics. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 432, 117397 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Nat Rev Cancer 15, 730–745 (2015)

    Altrock, P., Liu, L., Michor, F.: The mathematics of cancer: integrating quanti- tative models. Nat Rev Cancer 15, 730–745 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Chapman and Hall/CRC, ??? (2016)

    Kuang, Y., Nagy, J.D., Eikenberry, S.E.: Introduction to Mathematical Oncology. Chapman and Hall/CRC, ??? (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    eLife 12, 84263 (2023) https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84263

    West, J., Adler, F., Gallaher, J., Strobl, M., Brady-Nicholls, R., Brown, J.S., Robertson-Tessi, M., Kim, E., Noble, R., Viossat, Y., et al.: A survey of open questions in adaptive therapy: Bridging mathematics and clinical translation. eLife 12, 84263 (2023) https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84263

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.84263 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    PLOS Computational Biology 18(2), 1009822 (2022) https: 10 //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009822

    Ghaffari Laleh, N., Loeffler, C.M.L., Grajek, J., Staˇ nkov´ a, K., Pearson, A.T., Muti, H.S., Trautwein, C., Enderling, H., Poleszczuk, J., Kather, J.N.: Clas- sical mathematical models for prediction of response to chemotherapy and immunotherapy. PLOS Computational Biology 1...

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    bioRxiv, 2023–04 (2023)

    Soboleva, A., Kaznatcheev, A., Cavill, R., Schneider, K., Staˇ nkov´ a, K.: Validation of polymorphic gompertzian model of cancer through in vitro and in vivo data. bioRxiv, 2023–04 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Elife 11, 76284 (2022)

    Zhang, J., Cunningham, J., Brown, J., Gatenby, R.: Evolution-based math- ematical models significantly prolong response to abiraterone in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer and identify strategies to further improve outcomes. Elife 11, 76284 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Exper- imental Biology and Medicine 235(4), 411–423 (2010)

    Rejniak, K.A., McCawley, L.J.: Current trends in mathematical modeling of tumor–microenvironment interactions: a survey of tools and applications. Exper- imental Biology and Medicine 235(4), 411–423 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Nature ecology & evolution 3(3), 450–456 (2019)

    Kaznatcheev, A., Peacock, J., Basanta, D., Marusyk, A., Scott, J.G.: Fibroblasts and alectinib switch the evolutionary games played by non-small cell lung cancer. Nature ecology & evolution 3(3), 450–456 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    bioRxiv (2024) https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01

    Spekking, L., Lohk, C., Jung, W., Verduin, M., Azimi, S., Hubert, C., Vooijs, M., Cavill, R., Staˇ nkov´ a, K.: How to use transcriptomic data for game-theoretic modeling of treatment-induced resistance in cancer cells? A case study in patient- derived glioblastoma organoids. ...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    PLOS ONE 6(12), 28955 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028955

    Werner, B., Lutz, D., Br¨ ummendorf, T.H., Traulsen, A., Balabanov, S.: Dynam- ics of resistance development to imatinib under increasing selection pressure: A combination of mathematical models and in vitro data. PLOS ONE 6(12), 28955 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.po...

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Journal of clinical bioinformatics 3, 1–8 (2013)

    Gallasch, R., Efremova, M., Charoentong, P., Hackl, H., Trajanoski, Z.: Math- ematical models for translational and clinical oncology. Journal of clinical bioinformatics 3, 1–8 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Science translational medicine 3(90), 90–599059 (2011)

    Chmielecki, J., Foo, J., Oxnard, G.R., Hutchinson, K., Ohashi, K., Somwar, R., Wang, L., Amato, K.R., Arcila, M., Sos, M.L., et al.: Optimization of dosing for egfr-mutant non–small cell lung cancer with evolutionary cancer modeling. Science translational medicine 3(90), 90–59...

    2011

  10. [18]

    Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics 45(1), 127–137 (2018)

    Moore, H.: How to mathematically optimize drug regimens using optimal control. Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics 45(1), 127–137 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Evolutionary Applications14(4), 877–892 (2021) 11

    Dujon, A.M., Aktipis, A., Alix-Panabi` eres, C., Amend, S.R., Boddy, A.M., Brown, J.S., Capp, J.-P., DeGregori, J., Ewald, P., Gatenby, R., et al.: Identifying key questions in the ecology and evolution of cancer. Evolutionary Applications14(4), 877–892 (2021) 11

    2021

  12. [20]

    Nature Communications 8, 1816 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01968-5

    Zhang, J., Cunningham, J.J., Brown, J.S., J, Z.: Integrating evolutionary dynamics into treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Nature Communications 8, 1816 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01968-5

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B 287(1925), 20192454 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2454

    Gluzman, M., Scott, J.G., Vladimirsky, A.: Optimizing adaptive cancer therapy: dynamic programming and evolutionary game theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 287(1925), 20192454 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2454

    1925

  14. [22]

    Cancer Research 81(4), 1135–1147 (2021)

    Strobl, M.A., West, J., Viossat, Y., Damaghi, M., Robertson-Tessi, M., Brown, J.S., Gatenby, R.A., Maini, P.K., Anderson, A.R.: Turnover modulates the need for a cost of resistance in adaptive therapy. Cancer Research 81(4), 1135–1147 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    PLoS computational biology 9(7), 1003120 (2013)

    Powathil, G.G., Adamson, D.J.A., Chaplain, M.A.J.: Towards predicting the response of a solid tumour to chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments: clinical insights from a computational model. PLoS computational biology 9(7), 1003120 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    European Journal of Cancer 33(9), 1495–1500 (1997)

    Tomlinson, I.P.: Game-theory models of interactions between tumour cells. European Journal of Cancer 33(9), 1495–1500 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    Nature Reviews Cancer 19(2), 110–117 (2019)

    Archetti, M., Pienta, K.J.: Cooperation among cancer cells: applying game theory to cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 19(2), 110–117 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Dynamic Games and Applications 12(2), 313–342 (2022)

    W¨ olfl, B., Te Rietmole, H., Salvioli, M., Kaznatcheev, A., Thuijsman, F., Brown, J.S., Burgering, B., Staˇ nkov´ a, K.: The contribution of evolutionary game theory to understanding and treating cancer. Dynamic Games and Applications 12(2), 313–342 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Orlando, P.A., Gatenby, R.A., Brown, J.S.: Cancer treatment as a game: inte- grating evolutionary game theory into the optimal control of chemotherapy. Phys. Biol. 9(6) (2012) https://doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/9/6/065007

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    JAMA Oncology 5(1), 96–103 (2019)

    Staˇ nkov´ a, K., Brown, J.S., Dalton, W.S., Gatenby, R.A.: Optimizing cancer treatment using game theory. JAMA Oncology 5(1), 96–103 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Salvioli, M., Garjani, H., Satouri, M., Broom, M., Viossat, Y., Brown, J.S., Dubbeldam, J., Staˇ nkov´ a, K.: Stackelberg evolutionary games of cancer treat- ment: What treatment strategy to choose if cancer can be stabilized? Dynamic Games and Applications (2024) https://doi....

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 378(1876), 20210495 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0495

    Stein, A., Salvioli, M., Garjani, H., Dubbeldam, J., Viossat, Y., Brown, J.S., Staˇ nkov´ a, K.: Stackelberg evolutionary game theory: How to manage evolving systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 378(1876), 20210495 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0495

    2023

  23. [31]

    Cancer Research80(7), 1578–1589 (2020)

    West, J., You, L., Zhang, J., Gatenby, R.A., Brown, J.S., Newton, P.K., Anderson, 12 A.R.A.: Towards multi-drug adaptive therapy. Cancer Research80(7), 1578–1589 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    British journal of cancer 116(6), 785–792 (2017) https://doi.org/10

    Kaznatcheev, A., Velde, R.V., Scott, J.G., Basanta, D.: Cancer treatment scheduling and dynamic heterogeneity in social dilemmas of tumour acidity and vasculature. British journal of cancer 116(6), 785–792 (2017) https://doi.org/10. 1038/bjc.2017.5

    2017

  25. [33]

    non-spatial eco-evolutionary dynamics in a tumor growth model

    You, L., Brown, J.S., Thuijsman, F., Cunningham, J.J., Gatenby, R.A., Zhang, J., Staˇ nkov´ a, K.: Spatial vs. non-spatial eco-evolutionary dynamics in a tumor growth model. Journal of theoretical biology 435, 78–97 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    PLoS One 17(1), 0261578 (2022) https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261578

    Bayer, P., Gatenby, R.A., McDonald, P.H., Duckett, D.R., Staˇ nkov´ a, K., Brown, J.S.: Coordination games in cancer. PLoS One 17(1), 0261578 (2022) https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261578

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics 317(Suppl 1), 71–89 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1134/ S0081543822030063

    Grigorenko, N.L., Khailov, E.N., Grigorieva, E.V., Klimenkova, A.D.: Lotka– Volterra competition model with a nonmonotone therapy function for finding optimal strategies in the treatment of blood cancers. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics 317(Suppl 1), 71–89 ...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Nature Communications 12(1), 2963 (2021)

    Chao, H., Shan, H., Homayounieh, F., Singh, R., Khera, R.D., Guo, H., Su, T., Wang, G., Kalra, M.K., Yan, P.: Deep learning predicts cardiovascular dis- ease risks from lung cancer screening low dose computed tomography. Nature Communications 12(1), 2963 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 41(12), 2191–2200 (2023)

    Mikhael, P.G., Wohlwend, J., Yala, A., Karstens, L., Xiang, J., Takigami, A.K., Bourgouin, P.P., Chan, P., Mrah, S., Amayri, W., et al.: Sybil: a validated deep learning model to predict future lung cancer risk from a single low-dose chest computed tomography. Journal of Clini...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Scientific Reports 11(1), 13505 (2021)

    Vale-Silva, L.A., Rohr, K.: Long-term cancer survival prediction using multimodal deep learning. Scientific Reports 11(1), 13505 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Knowledge-Based Systems 221, 106965 (2021)

    Arya, N., Saha, S.: Multi-modal advanced deep learning architectures for breast cancer survival prediction. Knowledge-Based Systems 221, 106965 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    PloS one 15(6), 0233678 (2020)

    Wulczyn, E., Steiner, D.F., Xu, Z., Sadhwani, A., Wang, H., Flament-Auvigne, I., Mermel, C.H., Chen, P.-H.C., Liu, Y., Stumpe, M.C.: Deep learning-based survival prediction for multiple cancer types using histopathology images. PloS one 15(6), 0233678 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Folia biologica 65(5-6), 212–220 (2019) 13

    Kalafi, E., Nor, N., Taib, N., Ganggayah, M., Town, C., Dhillon, S.: Machine learning and deep learning approaches in breast cancer survival prediction using clinical data. Folia biologica 65(5-6), 212–220 (2019) 13

    2019

  34. [42]

    Journal of Oncology (2022) https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2965166

    Hu, J., Yu, W., Dai, Y., Liu, C., Wang, Y., Wu, Q.: A deep neural network for gastric cancer prognosis prediction based on biological information pathways. Journal of Oncology (2022) https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2965166

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Nature Communications (2023) https://doi.org/10

    Jiang, Y.: Biology-guided deep learning predicts prognosis and cancer immunotherapy response. Nature Communications (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41467-023-40890-x

    2023

  36. [44]

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (2020) https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jcim.0c00331

    Deng, L., Cai, Y., Zhang, W., Yang, W., Gao, B., Liu, H.: Pathway-guided deep neural network toward interpretable and predictive modeling of drug sensitivity. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (2020) https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.jcim.0c00331

    2020

  37. [45]

    Ca a Cancer Journal for Clinicians (2022) https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708

    Siegel, R.L., Miller, K.D., Fuchs, H., Jemal, A.: Cancer statistics, 2022. Ca a Cancer Journal for Clinicians (2022) https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.11591/eei.v13i2.6280

    Makubhai, S.S.: Predicting lung cancer risk using explainable artificial intelli- gence. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.11591/eei.v13i2.6280

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Advances in Difference Equations (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13662-019-2324-9

    Bozkurt, F., Yousef, A.: Neimark–sacker bifurcation of a chemotherapy treatment of glioblastoma multiform (gbm). Advances in Difference Equations (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1186/s13662-019-2324-9

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    Preprint (2024)

    Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Vaidya, S., Ruehle, F., Halverson, J., Soljaˇ ci´ c, M., Hou, T.Y., Tegmark, M.: Kolmogorov-arnold networks: A new neural network architecture. Preprint (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Preprint (2024)

    Somvanshi, S., Javed, S.A., Islam, M.M., Pandit, D., Das, S.: A survey on kolmogorov-arnold network. Preprint (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Preprint (2024)

    Ji, T., Hou, Y., Zhang, D.: A comprehensive survey on kolmogorov-arnold networks (kan). Preprint (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02496 (2024)

    Xu, K., Chen, L., Wang, S.: Kolmogorov-arnold networks for time series: Bridging predictive power and interpretability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02496 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12832 (2024) 14

    Bozorgasl, Z., Chen, H.: Wav-kan: Wavelet kolmogorov-arnold networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12832 (2024) 14

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.