Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37397881›Full record

ArticleNetwork neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2023

Expanding connectomics to the laminar level: A perspective.

Ittai Shamir, Yaniv Assaf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cellular and laminar architecture: A short history and commentary.The Journal of comparative neurology · 2023
    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.

Ittai ShamirDepartment of Neurobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4028-5154
Yaniv AssafDepartment of Neurobiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6828-7595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite great progress in uncovering the complex connectivity patterns of the human brain over the last two decades, the field of connectomics still experiences a bias in its viewpoint of the cerebral cortex. Due to a lack of information regarding exact end points of fiber tracts inside cortical gray matter, the cortex is commonly reduced to a single homogenous unit. Concurrently, substantial developments have been made over the past decade in the use of relaxometry and particularly inversion recovery imaging for exploring the laminar microstructure of cortical gray matter. In recent years, these developments have culminated in an automated framework for cortical laminar composition analysis and visualization, followed by studies of cortical dyslamination in epilepsy patients and age-related differences in laminar composition in healthy subjects. This perspective summarizes the developments and remaining challenges of multi-T1 weighted imaging of cortical laminar substructure, the current limitations in structural connectomics, and the recent progress in integrating these fields into a new model-based subfield termed 'laminar connectomics'. In the coming years, we predict an increased use of similar generalizable, data-driven models in connectomics with the purpose of integrating multimodal MRI datasets and providing a more nuanced and detailed characterization of brain connectivity.

Indexed as

Anatomical mappingBrain network analysisComputational modelsConnectomicsCortical layersNeuronal structures

Identifiers

PMID37397881
PMCPMC10312257

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.