ReviewBrain : a journal of neurology2016
The promises and pitfalls of applying computational models to neurological and psychiatric disorders.
Review in Brain : a journal of neurology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational modeling of selenoprotein deficiencies: a transformative avenue in selenoprotein-related psychiatric disorders.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Improving the Identification of the Preclinical Stages of Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 2.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2026Article
- How to Foster Challenging Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Can Philosophy Support Neuroscientists?The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
- Widely used bandit tasks elicit diverging belief updating phenotypes in healthy adults.Research square · 2026Article
- Inhibitory control deficits in problematic short-form video users: evidence from drift diffusion model.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Computational whole-body-exposome models for global precision brain health.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Refining mechanistic models of hallucinations for enhanced translatability.Translational psychiatry · 2025Review
- Computational Approaches for Uncovering Interoceptive Mechanisms in Psychiatric Disorders and Their Biological Basis.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2025Review
- A new predictive coding model for a more comprehensive account of delusions.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2024Review
- Reply to: In Search of the Behavioral and Neural Basis for Differentiating Fear and Anxiety.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024Article
- A scoping review of neurodegenerative manifestations in explainable digital phenotyping.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2023Article
- Lateral prefrontal cortex thickness is associated with stress but not cognitive fatigue in exhaustion disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Are Fear and Anxiety Truly Distinct?Biological psychiatry global open science · 2022Review
- Disordered Decision Making: A Cognitive Framework for Apathy and Impulsivity in Huntington's Disease.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2022Review
- Reinforcement learning as an intermediate phenotype in psychosis? Deficits sensitive to illness stage but not associated with polygenic risk of schizophrenia in the general population.Schizophrenia research · 2020Article
- Agitation and impulsivity in mid and late life as possible risk markers for incident dementia.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.) · 2020Review
- The neural and neurocomputational bases of recovery from post-stroke aphasia.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2020Review
- Food addiction: a valid concept?Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2018Review
- A Neurorobotics Simulation of Autistic Behavior Induced by Unusual Sensory Precision.Computational psychiatry (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2018Article
- The neuroanatomical and neurochemical basis of apathy and impulsivity in frontotemporal lobar degeneration.Current opinion in behavioral sciences · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational models have become an integral part of basic neuroscience and have facilitated some of the major advances in the field. More recently, such models have also been applied to the understanding of disruptions in brain function. In this review, using examples and a simple analogy, we discuss the potential for computational models to inform our understanding of brain function and dysfunction. We argue that they may provide, in unprecedented detail, an understanding of the neurobiological and mental basis of brain disorders and that such insights will be key to progress in diagnosis and treatment. However, there are also potential problems attending this approach. We highlight these and identify simple principles that should always govern the use of computational models in clinical neuroscience, noting especially the importance of a clear specification of a model's purpose and of the mapping between mathematical concepts and reality.
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.