Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38750282›Full record

ReviewCommunications biology2024

From pixels to connections: exploring in vitro neuron reconstruction software for network graph generation.

Cassandra Hoffmann, Ellie Cho, Andrew Zalesky, Maria A Di Biase

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Cassandra HoffmannSystems Neuroscience Lab, Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia. crho@student.unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-1310-1794
Ellie ChoBiological Optical Microscopy Platform, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.
Andrew ZaleskySystems Neuroscience Lab, Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2298-9908
Maria A Di BiaseSystems Neuroscience Lab, Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital reconstruction has been instrumental in deciphering how in vitro neuron architecture shapes information flow. Emerging approaches reconstruct neural systems as networks with the aim of understanding their organization through graph theory. Computational tools dedicated to this objective build models of nodes and edges based on key cellular features such as somata, axons, and dendrites. Fully automatic implementations of these tools are readily available, but they may also be purpose-built from specialized algorithms in the form of multi-step pipelines. Here we review software tools informing the construction of network models, spanning from noise reduction and segmentation to full network reconstruction. The scope and core specifications of each tool are explicitly defined to assist bench scientists in selecting the most suitable option for their microscopy dataset. Existing tools provide a foundation for complete network reconstruction, however more progress is needed in establishing morphological bases for directed/weighted connectivity and in software validation.

Indexed as

NeuronsSoftwareAlgorithmsAnimalsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedModels, NeurologicalNerve Net

Identifiers

PMID38750282
PMCPMC11096190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.