MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203340479 · doi:10.1103/physreve.107.044402

Swapping in lattice-based cell migration models

2023· article· en· W3203340479 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shahzeb Raja Noureen, Jennifer P. Owen, Richard L. Mort, Christian A. Yates

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Doctoral Training in Statistical Applied Mathematics, University of BathUniversity of BathEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilMcGill UniversityNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in ResearchNorth West Cancer Research
KeywordsSwap (finance)Lattice (music)Statistical physicsNeighbourhood (mathematics)Computer scienceAgent-based modelBiological systemPhysicsMathematicsBiologyArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell migration is frequently modeled using on-lattice agent-based models (ABMs) that employ the excluded volume interaction. However, cells are also capable of exhibiting more complex cell-cell interactions, such as adhesion, repulsion, pulling, pushing, and swapping. Although the first four of these have already been incorporated into mathematical models for cell migration, swapping has not been well studied in this context. In this paper, we develop an ABM for cell movement in which an active agent can "swap" its position with another agent in its neighborhood with a given swapping probability. We consider a two-species system for which we derive the corresponding macroscopic model and compare it with the average behavior of the ABM. We see good agreement between the ABM and the macroscopic density. We also analyze the movement of agents at an individual level in the single-species as well as two-species scenarios to quantify the effects of swapping on an agent's motility.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.470
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. ESame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207