Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25309419›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2014

LEMS: a language for expressing complex biological models in concise and hierarchical form and its use in underpinning NeuroML 2.

Robert C Cannon, Padraig Gleeson, Sharon Crook, Gautham Ganapathy, Boris Marin, Eugenio Piasini, R Angus Silver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing 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

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Building on models-a perspective for computational neuroscience.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Connectivity concepts in neuronal network modeling.PLoS computational biology · 2022
    Review
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Robert C CannonTextensor Limited Edinburgh, UK.
Padraig GleesonDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Physiology, University College London London, UK.
Sharon CrookSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences and School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University Tempe, AZ, USA.
Gautham GanapathyTextensor Limited Edinburgh, UK.
Boris MarinDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Physiology, University College London London, UK ; CAPES Foundation, Ministry of Education of Brazil Brasilia, Brazil.
Eugenio PiasiniDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Physiology, University College London London, UK.
R Angus SilverDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Physiology, University College London London, UK.

Funding

NeuroML: Standards and Tools for Multiscale Model Specification and ExchangeR01MH081905 · NIMH · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI CROOK, SHARON MARIE · 2009 to 2011
$891k
CRCNS Data Sharing: NeuroML Database for Multiscale Neuroscience ModelsR01EB014640 · NIBIB · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI CROOK, SHARON MARIE · 2011 to 2013
$265k
European Research Council 294667NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB014640NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH081905Wellcome Trust 095667
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational models are increasingly important for studying complex neurophysiological systems. As scientific tools, it is essential that such models can be reproduced and critically evaluated by a range of scientists. However, published models are currently implemented using a diverse set of modeling approaches, simulation tools, and computer languages making them inaccessible and difficult to reproduce. Models also typically contain concepts that are tightly linked to domain-specific simulators, or depend on knowledge that is described exclusively in text-based documentation. To address these issues we have developed a compact, hierarchical, XML-based language called LEMS (Low Entropy Model Specification), that can define the structure and dynamics of a wide range of biological models in a fully machine readable format. We describe how LEMS underpins the latest version of NeuroML and show that this framework can define models of ion channels, synapses, neurons and networks. Unit handling, often a source of error when reusing models, is built into the core of the language by specifying physical quantities in models in terms of the base dimensions. We show how LEMS, together with the open source Java and Python based libraries we have developed, facilitates the generation of scripts for multiple neuronal simulators and provides a route for simulator free code generation. We establish that LEMS can be used to define models from systems biology and map them to neuroscience-domain specific simulators, enabling models to be shared between these traditionally separate disciplines. LEMS and NeuroML 2 provide a new, comprehensive framework for defining computational models of neuronal and other biological systems in a machine readable format, making them more reproducible and increasing the transparency and accessibility of their underlying structure and properties.

Indexed as

model description languagemodel sharingsimulationspiking neural networksstandardization

Identifiers

PMID25309419
PMCPMC4174883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.