Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Necrotic tumor growth: an analytic approach

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Martin Kohlmann

Analysis of PDEs · Submitted 13 Apr 2011

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim We prove the existence of flat stationary solutions and determine the linearization of our model at such an equilibrium.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1104.2445 (version 2)
Pith IDLUMSEDU4, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationMartin Kohlmann. "Necrotic tumor growth: an analytic approach." arXiv:1104.2445 (2011). https://pith.science/paper/LUMSEDU4
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,847 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.03 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.04 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

The present paper deals with a free boundary problem modeling the growth process of necrotic multi-layer tumors. We prove the existence of flat stationary solutions and determine the linearization of our model at such an equilibrium. Finally, we compute the solutions of the stationary linearized problem and comment on bifurcation.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 The present paper deals with a free boundary problem modeling the growth process of necrotic multi-layer tumors. background 0.51 0.55 0.04 asserted 0.88
s1 We prove the existence of flat stationary solutions and determine the linearization of our model at such an equilibrium. result 0.67 0.96 0.27 asserted 1.00
s2 Finally, we compute the solutions of the stationary linearized problem and comment on bifurcation. result 0.74 0.95 0.25 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

The present paper deals with a free boundary problem modeling the growth process of necrotic multi-layer tumors. We prove the existence of flat stationary solutions and determine the linearization of our model at such an equilibrium. Finally, we compute the solutions of the stationary linearized problem and comment on bifurcation.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites · 1 sentence without a confident label

Cites as background 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.