In the last decades there has been a growing interest towards the concept of "Quality of Life" (QoL), not only in the bio-medical field, but also in other areas, such as sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, architecture, journalism, politics, environment, sports, recreation, advertisements. Nevertheless QoL does turn out to be an ambiguous and elusive concept -a precise, clear and shared definition appears to be a long way off. In this article an analysis of how QoL is interpreted and defined in various scientific articles published in the last two decades, is offered. In addition, an illustration of how widespread the use of this concept is in different fields of knowledge, the difficulties in reaching a shared understanding of QoL, the problems involved in stating clearly the construct, and a presentation of some of its conceptualizations, are provided. The importance of subjectivity in the definition of what QoL is, emerges as a key aspect. This personal and subjective dimension could be the starting point for a more thorough and holistic understanding of this concept, in which standardized sets of valid, reliable and evidence-based measures of, e.g., psychological and spiritual dimensions, are encompassed in the person's quality of life evaluation.

This work deals with the particular nature of network-based approach in biology. We will comment about the shift from the consideration of the molecular layer as the definitive place where causative process start to the elucidation of the among elements (at any level of biological organization they are located) interaction network as the main goal of scientific explanation. This shift comes from the intrinsic nature of networks where the properties of a specific node are determined by its position in the entire network (top-down explanation) while the global network characteristics emerge from the nodes wiring pattern (bottom-up explanation). This promotes a “middle-out” paradigm formally identical to the time honored chemical thought holding big promises in the study of biological regulation.

In the last decades there has been a growing interest towards the concept of "Quality of Life" (QoL), not only in the bio-medical field, but also in other areas, such as sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, architecture, journalism, politics, environment, sports, recreation, advertisements. Nevertheless QoL does turn out to be an ambiguous and elusive concept -a precise, clear and shared definition appears to be a long way off. In this article an analysis of how QoL is interpreted and defined in various scientific articles published in the last two decades, is offered. In addition, an illustration of how widespread the use of this concept is in different fields of knowledge, the difficulties in reaching a shared understanding of QoL, the problems involved in stating clearly the construct, and a presentation of some of its conceptualizations, are provided. The importance of subjectivity in the definition of what QoL is, emerges as a key aspect. This personal and subjective dimension could be the starting point for a more thorough and holistic understanding of this concept, in which standardized sets of valid, reliable and evidence-based measures of, e.g., psychological and spiritual dimensions, are encompassed in the person's quality of life evaluation.

Cancer spread is a dynamical process occurring not only in time but also in space which, for solid tumors at least, can be modeled quantitatively by reaction and diffusion equations with a bistable behavior: tumor cell colonization happens in a portion of tissue and propagates, but in some cases the process is stopped. Such a cancer proliferation/extintion dynamics is obtained in many mathematical models as a limit of complicated interacting biological fields. In this article we present a very basic model of cancer proliferation adopting thebistableequation for a single tumor cell dynamics. The reaction-diffusion theory is numerically and analytically studied and then extended in order to take into account dispersal effects in cancer progression in analogy with ecological models based on the porous medium equation. Possible implications of this approach for explanation and prediction of tumor development on the lines of existing studies on brain cancer progression are discussed. The potential role of continuum models in connecting the two predominant interpretative theories about cancer, once formalized in appropriate mathematical terms, is discussed.

No abstract