User talk:Jxy374/Benchmark IV: Discussion
I think the model limitation part is a little too simple. The problem with this model is not simply ignored the infltrating lymphocytes cells. Just base on lymphocytes, no mention to other immune cells, there are multiple situations can happen. For example, the lymphocyte may attack the cancer cells; may attack all the cells, but cancer cells sustain it, or even hijacked by cancer cells to kill the good cells. The key problem about this is that this model is a general cell population model, it is not based on the tissue level. It lacks the feature to correctly describe the cell interaction, but only focus on one type of intreaction that is lymphocytes kill the cancer cells.
The second sentence can be rewritten for more clarity (add commas, conjunctions). There are also a couple grammar and spacing mistakes I fixed below. Also maybe but the descriptions inside the parenthesis in another sentence for clarity.
Instead of: Our reproduced model shows that by decreasing parameter α1 (the growth rate of surface lymphocytes), α2( the death rates of tumor cells) or increasing parameters λ1(the death rate of lymphocytes), λ2(the growth rate of tumor cells), most importantly β2 and β1 (the efficiency of vascularization within and on the surface of tumor), tumor cells grow into infinity. On the contrast,
Try: Our reproduced model shows that by decreasing parameters α1 (the growth rate of surface lymphocytes) or α2 (the death rates of tumor cells), or by increasing parameters λ1 (the death rate of lymphocytes), λ2 (the growth rate of tumor cells), or most importantly β2 and β1 (the efficiency of vascularization within and on the surface of tumor), tumor cells grow into infinitly. In contrast,
Try to explain the discrepancies with original paper more: maybe explain how the model would be affected by each parameter you guessed on.
- Benchmark submitted on time?
- Rubric submitted on time?
- How well does the model support the original hypothesis?
- Discussed. This could be done in somewhat greater depth.
- Support for hypothesis and assumptions from other data in the literature?
- Briefly discussed; could be more in depth.
- Limitations of results?
- Good discussion. More citations to the literature would be helpful.
- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- Good discussion.
- Relationship to other work in the field?
- Good discussion; more references and more depth would be helpful.
- Discussion of future work
- Discussed, but too briefly.
On the whole, this is a good to very good initial draft of the discussion section. Please carefully proofread your writing; although your meaning is generally clear, there are many small errors that you could readily correct (or, you could show this to a friend who writes well and have them point out the errors to you). Four citations is probably too few for an excellent discussion; if you increase them, and go into more depth in the areas that were too brief, this is likely to be an excellent discussion section.