RevieweNeuro2025
Open Data In Neurophysiology: Advancements, Solutions & Challenges.
Review in eNeuro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurodatascience: Past, Present, and Future.Data science in science · 2026Article
- Starting a synthetic biological intelligence lab from scratch.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Review
- Precision neurodiversity: personalized brain network architecture as a window into cognitive variability.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ongoing efforts over the last 50 years have made data and methods more reproducible and transparent across the life sciences. This openness has led to transformative insights and vastly accelerated scientific progress (Gražulis et al., 2012; Munafó et al., 2017). For example, structural biology (Bruno and Groom, 2014) and genomics (Benson et al., 2013; Porter and Hajibabaei, 2018) have undertaken systematic collection and publication of protein sequences and structures over the past half century. These data, in turn, have led to scientific breakthroughs that were unthinkable when data collection first began (Jumper et al., 2021). We believe that neuroscience is poised to follow the same path, and that principles of open data and open science will transform our understanding of the nervous system in ways that are impossible to predict at the moment. New social structures supporting an active and open scientific community are essential (Saunders, 2022) to facilitate and expand the still limited adoption of open science practices in our field (Schottdorf et al., 2024). Unified by shared values of openness, we set out to organize a symposium for open data in neurophysiology (ODIN) to strengthen our community and facilitate transformative open neuroscience research at large. In this report, we synthesize insights from this first ODIN event. We also lay out plans for how to grow this movement, document emerging conversations, and propose a path toward a better and more transparent science of tomorrow.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.