2402.01305
Modeling the hallmarks of avascular tumors
Erik Blom, Stefan Engblom, Gesina Menz
correctmedium confidence
- Category
- Not specified
- Journal tier
- Specialist/Solid
- Processed
- Sep 28, 2025, 12:56 AM
- arXiv Links
- Abstract ↗PDF ↗
Audit review
The paper models each cell’s event sequence as Bernoulli trials with success probability q_i = b_i/(b_i + d_i) and forces q_i = 0 after η_i proliferations, then derives Ri = q_i(1 − q_i^{η_i})/(1 − q_i) (its Eq. 10) and Rpop = (1/Ncells)∑_i (b_i/d_i)(1 − q_i^{η_i}) (its Eq. 11). These are stated explicitly and match the candidate’s formulas and modeling assumptions, including the same “final-step” handling for the replicative limit . The candidate arrives at the identical Ri via the tail-sum formula rather than the paper’s truncated-expectation sum, but both yield the same closed form. A minor implicit assumption in the paper—and used by the candidate—is that b_i and d_i (hence q_i) are stationary across the Bernoulli sequence until termination; the paper’s notation treats q_i as fixed during that computation but does not dwell on time-variation under changing microenvironmental conditions (cf. the conditions for proliferation/apoptosis) .
Referee report (LaTeX)
\textbf{Recommendation:} minor revisions \textbf{Journal Tier:} specialist/solid \textbf{Justification:} The derivation of Ri and Rpop is mathematically correct and clearly tied to the model’s event-competition interpretation. To avoid misinterpretation when embedding this quantity in the fully dynamic spatial simulations, the paper should add a short note that the computation takes b\_i and d\_i (thus q\_i) as fixed during the Bernoulli sequence—an instantaneous or quasi-static approximation. Small clarifications would further improve reproducibility and reader confidence.