Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30856552›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in neurobiology2019

Continuing progress of spike sorting in the era of big data.

David Carlson, Lawrence Carin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in neurobiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Advanced Brain-on-a-Chip for Wetware Computing: A Review.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. AECuration: automated event curation for spike sorting.Journal of neural engineering · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

2 authors.

David CarlsonCivil and Environmental Engineering, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, United States. Electronic address: david.carlson@duke.edu.
Lawrence CarinElectrical and Computer Engineering, Duke University, United States.

Funding

Enabling Stress Resistance-Diversity SupplementR01MH099192 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DZIRASA, KAFUI · 2013 to 2018
$2.7M
Data commons for 'omic, microscopy and analysis core facilitiesS10OD018164 · OD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI WRAY, GREGORY A. · 2014 to 2014
$598k
NIH HHS S10 OD018164NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH099192
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Engineering efforts are currently attempting to build devices capable of collecting neural activity from one million neurons in the brain. Part of this effort focuses on developing dense multiple-electrode arrays, which require post-processing via 'spike sorting' to extract neural spike trains from the raw signal. Gathering information at this scale will facilitate fascinating science, but these dreams are only realizable if the spike sorting procedure and data pipeline are computationally scalable, at or superior to hand processing, and scientifically reproducible. These challenges are all being amplified as the data scale continues to increase. In this review, recent efforts to attack these challenges are discussed, which have primarily focused on increasing accuracy and reliability while being computationally scalable. These goals are addressed by adding additional stages to the data processing pipeline and using divide-and-conquer algorithmic approaches. These recent developments should prove useful to most research groups regardless of data scale, not just for cutting-edge devices.

Indexed as

Big DataAction PotentialsAlgorithmsBrainNeuronsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID30856552
PMCPMC7702194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.