ReviewFrontiers in neuroinformatics2018
Code Generation in Computational Neuroscience: A Review of Tools and Techniques.
Review in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Fractional-Order Spiking Bayesian Neural Model for Cognitive Computations.Neuroinformatics · 2026Article
- Simulation-based inference captures non-Markovian effects as exemplified in protein production kinetics through cell division.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Decoupling model descriptions from execution: a modular paradigm for extensible neurosimulation with EDEN.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- NESTML: a generic modeling language and code generation tool for the simulation of spiking neural networks with advanced plasticity rules.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Article
- Efficient parameter calibration and real-time simulation of large-scale spiking neural networks with GeNN and NEST.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2023Article
- Generative Models of Brain Dynamics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022Review
- EDEN: A High-Performance, General-Purpose, NeuroML-Based Neural Simulator.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Auto-Selection of an Optimal Sparse Matrix Format in the Neuro-Simulator ANNarchy.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Modernizing the NEURON Simulator for Sustainability, Portability, and Performance.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- A System-on-Chip Based Hybrid Neuromorphic Compute Node Architecture for Reproducible Hyper-Real-Time Simulations of Spiking Neural Networks.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- Brian2CUDA: Flexible and Efficient Simulation of Spiking Neural Network Models on GPUs.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2022Article
- RateML: A Code Generation Tool for Brain Network Models.Frontiers in network physiology · 2022Article
- Benchmarking Highly Parallel Hardware for Spiking Neural Networks in Robotics.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Article
- CoreNEURON : An Optimized Compute Engine for the NEURON Simulator.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- SpiNNTools: The Execution Engine for the SpiNNaker Platform.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in experimental techniques and computational power allowing researchers to gather anatomical and electrophysiological data at unprecedented levels of detail have fostered the development of increasingly complex models in computational neuroscience. Large-scale, biophysically detailed cell models pose a particular set of computational challenges, and this has led to the development of a number of domain-specific simulators. At the other level of detail, the ever growing variety of point neuron models increases the implementation barrier even for those based on the relatively simple integrate-and-fire neuron model. Independently of the model complexity, all modeling methods crucially depend on an efficient and accurate transformation of mathematical model descriptions into efficiently executable code. Neuroscientists usually publish model descriptions in terms of the mathematical equations underlying them. However, actually simulating them requires they be translated into code. This can cause problems because errors may be introduced if this process is carried out by hand, and code written by neuroscientists may not be very computationally efficient. Furthermore, the translated code might be generated for different hardware platforms, operating system variants or even written in different languages and thus cannot easily be combined or even compared. Two main approaches to addressing this issues have been followed. The first is to limit users to a fixed set of optimized models, which limits flexibility. The second is to allow model definitions in a high level interpreted language, although this may limit performance. Recently, a third approach has become increasingly popular: using code generation to automatically translate high level descriptions into efficient low level code to combine the best of previous approaches. This approach also greatly enriches efforts to standardize simulator-independent model description languages. In the past few years, a number of code generation pipelines have been developed in the computational neuroscience community, which differ considerably in aim, scope and functionality. This article provides an overview of existing pipelines currently used within the community and contrasts their capabilities and the technologies and concepts behind them.
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.