Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30455637›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroinformatics2018

Code Generation in Computational Neuroscience: A Review of Tools and Techniques.

Inga Blundell, Romain Brette, Thomas A Cleland, Thomas G Close, Daniel Coca, Andrew P Davison, Sandra Diaz-Pier, Carlos Fernandez Musoles, Padraig Gleeson, Dan F M Goodman and 19 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Generative Models of Brain Dynamics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. RateML: A Code Generation Tool for Brain Network Models.Frontiers in network physiology · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

29 authors.

Inga BlundellForschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA BRAIN Institute I, Jülich, Germany.
Romain BretteSorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France.
Thomas A ClelandDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Thomas G CloseMonash Biomedical Imaging, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Daniel CocaDepartment of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Andrew P DavisonUnité de Neurosciences, Information et Complexité, CNRS FRE 3693, Gif sur Yvette, France.
Sandra Diaz-PierForschungszentrum Jülich, Simulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany.
Carlos Fernandez MusolesDepartment of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Padraig GleesonDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Dan F M GoodmanDepartment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Michael HinesDepartment of Neurobiology, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States.
Michael W HopkinsAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Pramod KumbharBlue Brain Project, EPFL Campus Biotech, Geneva, Switzerland.
David R LesterAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Bóris MarinDepartment of Neuroscience, Physiology and Pharmacology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abigail MorrisonForschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6), Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6), JARA BRAIN Institute I, Jülich, Germany.
Eric MüllerKirchhoff-Institute for Physics Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas NowotnyCentre for Computational Neuroscience and Robotics, School of Engineering and Informatics University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Alexander PeyserForschungszentrum Jülich, Simulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany.
Dimitri PlotnikovForschungszentrum Jülich, Simulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany.
Paul RichmondDepartment of Computer Science University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Andrew RowleyAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Bernhard RumpeRWTH Aachen University, Software Engineering Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Aachen, Germany.
Marcel StimbergSorbonne Université, INSERM, CNRS, Institut de la Vision, Paris, France.
Alan B StokesAdvanced Processor Technologies Group, School of Computer Science University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Adam TomkinsDepartment of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Guido TrenschForschungszentrum Jülich, Simulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany.
Marmaduke WoodmanInstitut de Neurosciences des Systèmes Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France.
Jochen Martin EpplerForschungszentrum Jülich, Simulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, Jülich Aachen Research Alliance, Jülich, Germany.

Funding

COMPUTER METHODS FOR PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEMSR01NS011613 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MICHAEL L HINES, Robert A. McDougal · 1985 to 2026
$10.4M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS011613Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

code generationdomain specific languagemodeling languageneuronal networkssimulation

Identifiers

PMID30455637
PMCPMC6230720

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.