# User talk:Awm46/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki

## Contents

## 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.

### Introduction

- 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

- 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.

### Discussion

- 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)