Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30534066›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2018

Rigorous Neural Network Simulations: A Model Substantiation Methodology for Increasing the Correctness of Simulation Results in the Absence of Experimental Validation Data.

Guido Trensch, Robin Gutzen, Inga Blundell, Michael Denker, Abigail Morrison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Stochastic rounding and reduced-precision fixed-point arithmetic for solving neural ordinary differential equations.Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors.

Guido TrenschSimulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, JARA Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Robin GutzenInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10) Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Inga BlundellInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10) Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Michael DenkerInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10) Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.
Abigail MorrisonSimulation Lab Neuroscience, Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Institute for Advanced Simulation, JARA Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The reproduction and replication of scientific results is an indispensable aspect of good scientific practice, enabling previous studies to be built upon and increasing our level of confidence in them. However, reproducibility and replicability are not sufficient: an incorrect result will be accurately reproduced if the same incorrect methods are used. For the field of simulations of complex neural networks, the causes of incorrect results vary from insufficient model implementations and data analysis methods, deficiencies in workmanship (e.g., simulation planning, setup, and execution) to errors induced by hardware constraints (e.g., limitations in numerical precision). In order to build credibility, methods such as verification and validation have been developed, but they are not yet well-established in the field of neural network modeling and simulation, partly due to ambiguity concerning the terminology. In this manuscript, we propose a terminology for model verification and validation in the field of neural network modeling and simulation. We outline a rigorous workflow derived from model verification and validation methodologies for increasing model credibility when it is not possible to validate against experimental data. We compare a published minimal spiking network model capable of exhibiting the development of polychronous groups, to its reproduction on the SpiNNaker neuromorphic system, where we consider the dynamics of several selected network states. As a result, by following a formalized process, we show that numerical accuracy is critically important, and even small deviations in the dynamics of individual neurons are expressed in the dynamics at network level.

Indexed as

fixed-point numericmodel validationreproducibilityspiking network modelsSpiNNakerverification and validation

Identifiers

PMID30534066
PMCPMC6275234

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.