Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37503030›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Resolving Non-identifiability Mitigates Bias in Models of Neural Tuning and Functional Coupling.

Pratik Sachdeva, Ji Hyun Bak, Jesse Livezey, Christoph Kirst, Loren Frank, Sharmodeep Bhattacharyya, Kristofer E Bouchard

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. 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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Pratik SachdevaPhysics Department, UC Berkeley.
Ji Hyun BakKavli Institute for Fundamental Neuroscience, UC San Francisco.
Jesse LivezeyBiological Systems and Engineering Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.
Christoph KirstKavli Institute for Fundamental Neuroscience, UC San Francisco.
Loren FrankKavli Institute for Fundamental Neuroscience, UC San Francisco.
Sharmodeep BhattacharyyaDepartment of Statistics; Oregon State University.
Kristofer E BouchardRedwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience, UC Berkeley.

Funding

Origins of ECoGR01NS118648 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI BOUCHARD, KRISTOFER E. · 2020 to 2024
$1.9M
NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS118648
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the brain, all neurons are driven by the activity of other neurons, some of which maybe simultaneously recorded, but most are not. As such, models of neuronal activity need to account for simultaneously recorded neurons and the influences of unmeasured neurons. This can be done through inclusion of model terms for observed external variables (e.g., tuning to stimuli) as well as terms for latent sources of variability. Determining the influence of groups of neurons on each other relative to other influences is important to understand brain functioning. The parameters of statistical models fit to data are commonly used to gain insight into the relative importance of those influences. Scientific interpretation of models hinge upon unbiased parameter estimates. However, evaluation of biased inference is rarely performed and sources of bias are poorly understood. Through extensive numerical study and analytic calculation, we show that common inference procedures and models are typically biased. We demonstrate that accurate parameter selection before estimation resolves model non-identifiability and mitigates bias. In diverse neurophysiology data sets, we found that contributions of coupling to other neurons are often overestimated while tuning to exogenous variables are underestimated in common methods. We explain heterogeneity in observed biases across data sets in terms of data statistics. Finally, counter to common intuition, we found that model non-identifiability contributes to bias, not variance, making it a particularly insidious form of statistical error. Together, our results identify the causes of statistical biases in common models of neural data, provide inference procedures to mitigate that bias, and reveal and explain the impact of those biases in diverse neural data sets.

Identifiers

PMID37503030
PMCPMC10370036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.