Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33643075›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2021

Note on the Reliability of Biological vs. Artificial Neural Networks.

Ruedi Stoop

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Ruedi StoopDepartment of Physics, Institute of Neuroinformatics, University and ETH Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various types of neural networks are currently widely used in diverse technical applications, not least because neural networks are known to be able to "generalize." The latter property raises expectations that they should be able to handle unexpected situations with similar success than humans. Using fundamental examples, we show that in situations for which they have not been trained, artificial approaches tend to run into substantial problems, which highlights a deficit in comparisons to human abilities. For this problem-which seems to have obtained little attention so far-we provide a first analysis, based on simple examples, which exhibits some key features responsible for the difference between human and artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

artificial vs. biological neural networksgeneralization abilityinfluence of evolutionnetwork solution reliabilitysize and structure of problem solutions

Identifiers

PMID33643075
PMCPMC7907171

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.