Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22275206›Full record

ReviewIEEE reviews in biomedical engineering2010

Bayesian quantitative electrophysiology and its multiple applications in bioengineering.

Roger C Barr, Loren W Nolte, Andrew E Pollard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in IEEE reviews in biomedical engineering, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Roger C BarrDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. roger.barr@duke.edu
Loren W Nolte
Andrew E Pollard

Funding

Novel Methods for Cardiac Micro-Impedance MeasurementR01HL092049 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI POLLARD, ANDREW EMIL · 2009 to 2014
$1.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS HL092049NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL092049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian interpretation of observations began in the early 1700s, and scientific electrophysiology began in the late 1700s. For two centuries these two fields developed mostly separately. In part that was because quantitative Bayesian interpretation, in principle a powerful method of relating measurements to their underlying sources, often required too many steps to be feasible with hand calculation in real applications. As computer power became widespread in the later 1900s, Bayesian models and interpretation moved rapidly but unevenly from the domain of mathematical statistics into applications. Use of Bayesian models now is growing rapidly in electrophysiology. Bayesian models are well suited to the electrophysiological environment, allowing a direct and natural way to express what is known (and unknown) and to evaluate which one of many alternatives is most likely the source of the observations, and the closely related receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve is a powerful tool in making decisions. Yet, in general, many people would ask what such models are for, in electrophysiology, and what particular advantages such models provide. So to examine this question in particular, this review identifies a number of electrophysiological papers in bioengineering arising from questions in several organ systems to see where Bayesian electrophysiological models or ROC curves were important to the results that were achieved.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremElectrophysiological PhenomenaBiomedical EngineeringBrainGenomicsHumansModels, StatisticalModels, TheoreticalROC CurveVision, Ocular

Identifiers

PMID22275206
PMCPMC3935245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.