Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932442›Full record

ArticleJournal of computational neuroscience2022

Probabilistic solvers enable a straight-forward exploration of numerical uncertainty in neuroscience models.

Jonathan Oesterle, Nicholas Krämer, Philipp Hennig, Philipp Berens

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of computational neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jonathan OesterleInstitute of Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8919-1445
Nicholas KrämerDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3197-9317
Philipp HennigDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7293-6092
Philipp BerensInstitute of Ophthalmic Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. philipp.berens@uni-tuebingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0199-4727

Funding

ADIMEM 01IS18052BADIMEM 01IS18052CEuropean Research Council ERC StG Action 757275 / PANAMAExcellence Cluster 2064 390727645Heisenberg Professorship BE5601/4-1Tübingen AI Center 01IS18039A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding neural computation on the mechanistic level requires models of neurons and neuronal networks. To analyze such models one typically has to solve coupled ordinary differential equations (ODEs), which describe the dynamics of the underlying neural system. These ODEs are solved numerically with deterministic ODE solvers that yield single solutions with either no, or only a global scalar error indicator on precision. It can therefore be challenging to estimate the effect of numerical uncertainty on quantities of interest, such as spike-times and the number of spikes. To overcome this problem, we propose to use recently developed sampling-based probabilistic solvers, which are able to quantify such numerical uncertainties. They neither require detailed insights into the kinetics of the models, nor are they difficult to implement. We show that numerical uncertainty can affect the outcome of typical neuroscience simulations, e.g. jittering spikes by milliseconds or even adding or removing individual spikes from simulations altogether, and demonstrate that probabilistic solvers reveal these numerical uncertainties with only moderate computational overhead.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, NeurologicalUncertaintyComputational neuroscienceHodgkin–HuxleyProbabilistic numericsUncertainty quantification

Identifiers

PMID35932442
PMCPMC9666333

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.