ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2012
The limits of brain determinacy.
Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The adaptive stochasticity hypothesis: Modeling equifinality, multifinality, and adaptation to adversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Review
- Stochastic developmental variation, an epigenetic source of phenotypic diversity with far-reaching biological consequences.Journal of biosciences · 2015Review
- Patterned Brain Stimulation, What a Framework with Rhythmic and Noisy Components Might Tell Us about Recovery Maximization.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013Article
- Stochastic computations in cortical microcircuit models.PLoS computational biology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The genes do not control everything that happens in a cell or an organism, because thermally induced molecular movements and conformation changes are beyond genetic control. The importance of uncontrolled events has been argued from the differences between isogenic organisms reared in virtually identical environments, but these might alternatively be attributed to subtle, undetected differences in the environment. The present review focuses on the uncontrolled events themselves in the context of the developing brain. These are considered at cellular and circuit levels because even if cellular physiology was perfectly controlled by the genes (which it is not), the interactions between different cells might still be uncoordinated. A further complication is that the brain contains mechanisms that buffer noise and others that amplify it. The final resultant of the battle between these contrary mechanisms is that developmental stochasticity is sufficiently low to make neurobehavioural defects uncommon, but a chance component of neural development remains. Thus, our brains and behaviour are not entirely determined by a combination of genes-plus-environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.