Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27837401›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2017

Collection of Simulated Data from a Thalamocortical Network Model.

Helena Głąbska, Chaitanya Chintaluri, Daniel K Wójcik

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Helena GłąbskaDepartment of Neurophysiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Chaitanya ChintaluriDepartment of Neurophysiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
Daniel K WójcikDepartment of Neurophysiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology of Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. d.wojcik@nencki.gov.pl.ORCID 0000-0003-0812-9872

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major challenge in experimental data analysis is the validation of analytical methods in a fully controlled scenario where the justification of the interpretation can be made directly and not just by plausibility. In some sciences, this could be a mathematical proof, yet biological systems usually do not satisfy assumptions of mathematical theorems. One solution is to use simulations of realistic models to generate ground truth data. In neuroscience, creating such data requires plausible models of neural activity, access to high performance computers, expertise and time to prepare and run the simulations, and to process the output. To facilitate such validation tests of analytical methods we provide rich data sets including intracellular voltage traces, transmembrane currents, morphologies, and spike times. Moreover, these data can be used to study the effects of different tissue models on the measurement. The data were generated using the largest publicly available multicompartmental model of thalamocortical network (Traub et al., Journal of Neurophysiology, 93(4), 2194-2232 (Traub et al. 2005)), with activity evoked by different thalamic stimuli.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, NeurologicalNeural Networks, ComputerAnimalsCerebral CortexDatasets as TopicHumansInformation DisseminationMembrane PotentialsNeural PathwaysNeuronsSoftwareThalamusCurrent source densityData sharingExtracellular potentialHDF5Local field potentialMicroelectrode arrayModellingSimulated data

Identifiers

PMID27837401
PMCPMC5306152

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.