Judge Quicksilver
-----------------

Overall the implementation seems correct. Most of the recommended
modifications or questions are with respect to: (1) insufficient commenting of
functions, (2) extraneous for-loops, (3) minor modifications. Also there is a
slot of repetitive code across these files. Instead of copying and pasting and
then modifying, one or two functions could be written to simulate drug levels and
dosing schedules (one for 24hr and one for 16hr). This function could then be
imported and called from the various scripts needed to complete this project.


XSEDE_report.pdf
It is somewhat unclear what the goal of the report is especially for the bonus
questions. The report should be able to stand on it's own so you should be
able to state our task was X so that we could answer a question about Y. Thus
we modeled Y as follows and determined A, B, C.

see written comments.
Also in the case study you have used the same medicinal level and toxic levels
for the two other drugs you examined. Usually toxic and medicinal levels vary
from drug to drug, however you did not take this into account. Why did you not
use the corrected model that accounts for 16 hours of awake time for the case
study?


drug_dosage.py

Well implemented. Well commented. Good choice in variable names. 
All TODO lines should be removed once implemented (line 73).
The two for loops on line 53 and 63 could be combined into a single loop.
Using varying line styles would improve the plots.

drug_dosage_sensitivity.py

Well implemented. Well commented. Good choice in variable names. 
All TODO lines should be removed once implemented.
Line 63 is necessary. The commenting of the if-statements is slightly
confusing since it goes with the if-statement but "# Otherwise, run the model"
is not paired with "else". In fact, it would be much clearer if the comment on
line 64 was simply removed.

sensitivity_test.py

Well implemented. Well commented.
It is generally not recommended to use import *. This code is somewhat less
readable because many of the lines exceed the PEP8 character limit.
Variable names are one or two letters which makes the code harder to read.
Instead of "er" or "t" use "excretion_rates" or "times". Instead of
"sens_conc" maybe use "plasma_concentration".

drug_dosage_correction.py

Commented mislabels this file as drug_dosage_start.py
All TODO lines should be removed once implemented (line 68).
Line 71 is unnecessary as the two for loops can be combined into a single for
loop.

Bonus1.py

Comment mislabels file as "drug_dosage_start.py". No description of what file
does at the top of the file. The for loop on lines 70 and 78 can be combined
into a single for-loop. The TODO notes should be removed once implemented. One
line 40 why do you have (toxic_level - 1) when you are using a "<"? Is "1" a
tolerance w.r.t. the toxic level?

This is a simple, but correct solution. Another possibly less expensive
solution method would be to implement a search to find the min/max.

Bonus2.py

Poorly commented, functions lack summarizing descriptions.

No labeling on 2nd plot what the dotted blue line is. Comment mislabels the
file as "drug_dosage_start.py". No comment description of input variables. No
comment header description of the file or simulation function. 

Function count_mg lacks a comment describing what it does. Safety condition
variables lack comments.

Function mg_vol lacks a comment describing what it does.


Bonus3.py

No option to enter weight in lbs or stone. Same comments as Bonus2.py.

Bonus4_celebrex.py
Bonus4_apriso.py

Similar comments about TODO line, double for-loop. The axes on these plots are
not labeled. There is a lot of needlessly duplicated code between these two
files. Still using 24hr dosage schedule instead of more sensible 16 hour
dosage schedule.