From simple to detailed models for cell polarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many mathematical models have been proposed for the process of cell polarization. Some of these are 'functional models' that capture a class of dynamical behaviour, whereas others are derived from features of signalling molecules. Some mechanistic models are detailed, and therefore complex, whereas others are simplified. Each type contributes to our understanding of cell polarization. However, the huge variety at different levels of detail makes comparisons challenging. Here, we provide examples of both elementary and more detailed models for polarization. We also display how a recent mathematical method, local perturbation analysis, can provide an appropriate tool for such comparisons. This technique simplifies and speeds up the model development process by revealing the effect of model extensions, parameter variations and in silico manipulations such as knock-out or over-expression of key molecules. Finally, simulations in both one dimension and two dimensions, and particularly in deforming two-dimensional 'cells', can highlight behaviour not captured by traditional simulation methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".