User talk:Awm46/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Student Comments

Overall I thought the paper was interesting and well written. I think discrepancies, other work in field etc should all be subheadings under discussions. I would add more on what supports the cancer stem cell theory that even though it is unproven it is worth it to pursue modeling it. Good Work! --Janet Wang (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

Instructor Comments

  • Term paper survey submitted with term paper?
    • Yes.


  • Significance of problem?
    • Yes, but terms like D, R and G mutations are not defined in the Introduction, making it hard for a reader to follow.
  • Statement of hypothesis?
    • Yes, but should have been highlighted.
  • List of references?
    • Yes, a reasonable number (20).
  • Properly formatted references?
    • Yes.

Model Description

  • State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
    • Yes, nicely laid out.
  • Term-by-term description of model components?
    • Yes. It would have been helpful to fully analyze at least one of the terms, but the descriptions of the significance of each of the terms is nicely done.
  • Have you described model assumptions?
    • Yes.
  • Description of equation simulation?
    • Yes.


  • Results described and compared to original paper?
    • Yes; nicely done.
  • Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
    • Yes; nicely done.
  • Figures and legends to show results?
    • Yes; figures clearly described.
  • Discrepancies relative to original model?
    • Discussed in the Discussion section.
  • Uploaded Mathematica file?
    • Yes.


  • How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
    • Well discussed.
  • Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
    • Well discussed with appropriate references.
  • Limitations of results?
    • Well discussed.
  • Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
    • Carefully analyzed; very nice!
  • Relationship to other work in the field?
    • Carefully discussed with references.
  • Discussion of future work?
    • Good discussion; it would have been helpful to support these ideas with additional references.

Overall Term Paper Quality

  • How well was the model replicated?
    • Excellent replication.
  • Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
    • Excellent understanding.
  • How well written is the term paper?
    • A few typographical errors, but otherwise well written, clear, and easy to follow.
  • How hard was the model extension that you did?
    • Moderately hard.
  • How good was the extension?
    • Results were carefully discussed. It might have been useful to have a diagram to clarify your logic.
  • Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
    • Yes.
  • Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
    • Yes.

On the whole, an excellent term paper. There were several places where the description of the logic could have been clearer (and a diagram would have been helpful), but otherwise excellent.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2017 (EDT)