# User talk:Tak89/Final Term Paper

## Contents

## Student Comments

In the model descriptions assumptions there is a typo in the first assumption where there is just a 1.

Extension equation neutrophil influx: dont forget to put the actual authors Mochan et. al. for the equation we borrowed. for -d N[t] t be consistant with the rest of the formatting id put it on the top as well

I would talk more about what figues 1c and d signify: ie sufficiently large concentrations of bacteria are still big threat to people with these neutrophil levels.

Talk more about figure 3 and how it supports hypothesis because type ii dynamics occur for more parameter combinations

id put the logplot of type 1 dynamics in figure 4 as well

would put more stuff for discussions , other attempts at modeling neutrophils etc.

Yay --Janet Wang (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2017 (EDT)

## Instructor Comments

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

### Introduction

- Significance of problem?
- Yes.

- Statement of hypothesis?
- Yes, but only the last sentence is the hypothesis.

- List of references?
- Yes; total of 20, most not from the original paper. Eleven cited in the Introduction.

- Properly formatted references?
- Yes.

### Model Description

- State variables, parameters and inputs to the model clearly distinguished?
- Yes.

- Term-by-term description of model components?
- Yes; nicely done!

- Have you described model assumptions?
- Yes, very clearly.

- Description of equation simulation?
- Yes, very clear and detailed.

### Results

- Results described and compared to original paper?
- Yes.

- Have you addressed the original biological hypothesis?
- Yes, very clearly.

- Figures and legends to show results?
- Yes, well done.

- Discrepancies relative to original model?
- Small discrepancies discussed .

- 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.

- Limitations of results?
- Well discussed.

- Discrepancies and how they affect conclusions?
- Well discussed.

- Relationship to other work in the field?
- Discussed, but could have been done in more depth.

- Discussion of future work?
- Discussed. Could have been more specific.

### Overall Term Paper Quality

- How well was the model replicated?
- Excellent replication.

- Based on the term paper, how well did you understand the material?
- Understanding is excellent.

- How well written is the term paper?
- Somewhat informal in places, but very clear, no errors.

- How hard was the model extension that you did?
- Moderately hard extension - added a new equation, increased the dimensionality of the model.

- How good was the extension?
- Very good, and provided some insight into the original hypothesis.

- Mathematica code clear and well annotated?
- Yes.

- Mathematica code generates figures when evaluated?
- Two Manipulates did not evaluate properly; the rest of the figures (including other Manipulates) did evaluate.

On the whole, this is an excellent term paper. The writing is a bit informal, but very clear, and the results are very good. A bit more depth in the discussion of the related literature would have improved the final discussion.

--Hillel Chiel (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2017 (EDT)