ReviewiScience2021
A deeper look into natural sciences with physics-based and data-driven measures.
Review in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical models of embryonic epithelial healing.PLoS computational biology · 2026Review
- On Entropic Learning from Noisy Time Series in the Small Data Regime.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Skyrmion pinning energetics in thin film systems.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Low-Cost Probabilistic 3D Denoising with Applications for Ultra-Low-Radiation Computed Tomography.Journal of imaging · 2022Article
- Co-Inference of Data Mislabelings Reveals Improved Models in Genomics and Breast Cancer Diagnostics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the development of machine learning in recent years, it is possible to glean much more information from an experimental data set to study matter. In this perspective, we discuss some state-of-the-art data-driven tools to analyze latent effects in data and explain their applicability in natural science, focusing on two recently introduced, physics-motivated computationally cheap tools-latent entropy and latent dimension. We exemplify their capabilities by applying them on several examples in the natural sciences and show that they reveal so far unobserved features such as, for example, a gradient in a magnetic measurement and a latent network of glymphatic channels from the mouse brain microscopy data. What sets these techniques apart is the relaxation of restrictive assumptions typical of many machine learning models and instead incorporating aspects that best fit the dynamical systems at hand.
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.