The pattern appears to be that the central number is a multiple of the sum of the side numbers. Let's assume a simpler pattern for the final part: (16+18)*3 = 102. The logic across all three is inconsistent in the source. [cite: 5111, 5112, 5113, 5114, 5115, 5116, 5117, 5118, 5119, 5120, 5129, 5130, 5134, 5135, 5136, 5137, 5138, 5139]