Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20603354›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2010

Neuronal network analyses: premises, promises and uncertainties.

David Parker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Optogenetics for light control of biological systems.Nature reviews. Methods primers · 2022
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Shining light into the black box of spinal locomotor networks.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

David ParkerDepartment of Physiology, Development, and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. djp27@cam.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuronal networks assemble the cellular components needed for sensory, motor and cognitive functions. Any rational intervention in the nervous system will thus require an understanding of network function. Obtaining this understanding is widely considered to be one of the major tasks facing neuroscience today. Network analyses have been performed for some years in relatively simple systems. In addition to the direct insights these systems have provided, they also illustrate some of the difficulties of understanding network function. Nevertheless, in more complex systems (including human), claims are made that the cellular bases of behaviour are, or will shortly be, understood. While the discussion is necessarily limited, this issue will examine these claims and highlight some traditional and novel aspects of network analyses and their difficulties. This introduction discusses the criteria that need to be satisfied for network understanding, and how they relate to traditional and novel approaches being applied to addressing network function.

Indexed as

AnimalsBrainCognitionHumansNerve NetNeurons

Identifiers

PMID20603354
PMCPMC2894952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.