User talk:Tak89/Final Term Paper

From BIOL 300 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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)