Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38464109›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024

Matching provides efficient decisions.

Jan Kubanek

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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.

Jan KubanekUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0527-5559

Funding

Noninvasive Targeted NeuromodulationRF1NS128569 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI KUBANEK, JAN · 2022 to 2022
$1.4M
NINDS NIH HHS RF1 NS128569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How humans and animals distribute their behavior across choice options has been of key interest to economics, psychology, ecology, and related fields. Neoclassical and behavioral economics have provided prescriptions for how decision-makers can maximize their reward or utility, but these formalisms are used by decision-makers rarely. Instead, individuals allocate their behavior in proportion to the worth of their options, a phenomenon captured by the generalized matching law. Why biological decision-makers adopt this strategy has been unclear. To provide insight into this issue, this article evaluates the performance of matching across a broad spectrum of decision situations, using simulations. Matching is found to attain a high or near-optimal gain, and the strategy achieves this level of performance following a single evaluation of the decision options. Thus, matching provides highly efficient decisions across a wide range of choice environments. This result offers a quantitative explanation for the broad adoption of matching by biological decision-makers.

Identifiers

PMID38464109
PMCPMC10925186

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.