Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29782491›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2018

Community-based benchmarking improves spike rate inference from two-photon calcium imaging data.

Philipp Berens, Jeremy Freeman, Thomas Deneux, Nikolay Chenkov, Thomas McColgan, Artur Speiser, Jakob H Macke, Srinivas C Turaga, Patrick Mineault, Peter Rupprecht and 19 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing 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

91 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Machine learning in healthcare citizen science: A scoping review.International journal of medical informatics · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Spike rate inference from mouse spinal cord calcium imaging data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 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

29 authors.

Philipp BerensInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0199-4727
Jeremy FreemanChan Zuckerberg Initiative, San Francisco, California, United States of America.
Thomas DeneuxUnit of Neuroscience Information and Complexity, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Gif-sur-Yvette, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9330-7655
Nikolay ChenkovBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience and Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Thomas McColganBernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience and Institute for Theoretical Biology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0027-0580
Artur SpeiserResearch Center Caesar, an associate of the Max Planck Society, Bonn, Germany.
Jakob H MackeResearch Center Caesar, an associate of the Max Planck Society, Bonn, Germany.
Srinivas C TuragaJanelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3247-6487
Patrick MineaultIndependent Researcher, San Francisco, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5519-842X
Peter RupprechtFriedrich Miescher Institute of Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8235-8257
Stephan GerhardFriedrich Miescher Institute of Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4454-6171
Rainer W FriedrichFriedrich Miescher Institute of Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8803-2976
Johannes FriedrichDepartments of Statistics and Neuroscience, Grossman Center for the Statistics of Mind, and Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1321-5866
Liam PaninskiDepartments of Statistics and Neuroscience, Grossman Center for the Statistics of Mind, and Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Marius PachitariuJanelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7106-814X
Kenneth D HarrisInstitute of Neurology, University College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4922-3972
Ben BolteDepartments of Mathematics and Computer Science, Emory University, Atlanta, United States of America.
Timothy A MachadoDepartments of Statistics and Neuroscience, Grossman Center for the Statistics of Mind, and Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America.
Dario RingachNeurobiology and Psychology, Jules Stein Eye Institute, Biomedical Engineering Program, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Jasmine StoneJanelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0690-0141
Luke E RogersonInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Nicolas J SofroniewJanelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, Virginia, United States of America.
Jacob ReimerDepartment of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Emmanouil FroudarakisDepartment of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3249-3845
Thomas EulerInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4567-6966
Miroslav Román RosónInstitute for Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Lucas TheisTwitter, London, United Kingdom.
Andreas S ToliasDepartment of Neuroscience, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-4305-6376
Matthias BethgeCenter for Integrative Neuroscience, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

Validating Theoretical Models with Neurophysiology and OptogeneticsU19NS107613 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ADESNIK, HILLEL · 2018 to 2022
$16.7M
Modeling multi-area dynamics during motor controlU19NS104649 · NINDS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI COSTA, RUI M. · 2017 to 2021
$15.3M
Theoretical Studies of Visual CortexR01EY018322 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI CALLAWAY, EDWARD M, RINGACH, DARIO L · 2007 to 2017
$4.2M
Dissecting the Fabric of the Cerebral CortexDP1EY023176 · NEI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI TOLIAS, ANDREAS · 2012 to 2015
$3.1M
QUANTITATIVE STUDIES OF CORTICAL VISUAL PROCESSINGR01EY012816 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI RINGACH, DARIO L · 2000 to 2009
$2.8M
Bayesian estimation of network connectivity and motifsR01EB022915 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI RINGACH, DARIO L · 2016 to 2018
$1.2M
Next-Generation Calcium Imaging Analysis MethodsR01EB022913 · NIBIB · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI PANINSKI, LIAM M · 2016 to 2018
$1.1M
Optimal calcium imaging with shaped excitationR21EY027592 · NEI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI PANINSKI, LIAM M, PETERKA, DARCY S · 2016 to 2018
$563k
NEI NIH HHS DP1 EY023176NEI NIH HHS R01 EY012816NEI NIH HHS R01 EY018322NEI NIH HHS R21 EY027592NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB022913NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB022915NINDS NIH HHS U19 NS104649NINDS NIH HHS U19 NS107613Wellcome Trust 108726
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, two-photon calcium imaging has become a standard tool to probe the function of neural circuits and to study computations in neuronal populations. However, the acquired signal is only an indirect measurement of neural activity due to the comparatively slow dynamics of fluorescent calcium indicators. Different algorithms for estimating spike rates from noisy calcium measurements have been proposed in the past, but it is an open question how far performance can be improved. Here, we report the results of the spikefinder challenge, launched to catalyze the development of new spike rate inference algorithms through crowd-sourcing. We present ten of the submitted algorithms which show improved performance compared to previously evaluated methods. Interestingly, the top-performing algorithms are based on a wide range of principles from deep neural networks to generative models, yet provide highly correlated estimates of the neural activity. The competition shows that benchmark challenges can drive algorithmic developments in neuroscience.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalAction PotentialsAlgorithmsAnimalsCalciumComputational BiologyDatabases, FactualMiceMolecular ImagingOptical ImagingRetinaRetinal NeuronsCalcium

Identifiers

PMID29782491
PMCPMC5997358

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.