Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41813839›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Correcting model error bias in estimations of neuronal dynamics from time series observations.

Ian Williams, Joseph D Taylor, Alain Nogaret

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Ian WilliamsDepartment of Physics, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK.
Joseph D TaylorDepartment of Physics, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK.
Alain NogaretDepartment of Physics, University of Bath, BA2 7AY, Bath, UK. A.R.Nogaret@bath.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuron models built from experimental data have successfully predicted observed voltage oscillations within and beyond training range. A tantalising prospect is the possibility of estimating the unobserved dynamics of ion channels, which is largely inaccessible to experiment, from membrane voltage recordings. The main roadblock here is our lack of knowledge of the equations governing biological neurons which forces us to rely on surrogate models and parameter estimates biassed by model error. Error correction algorithms are therefore needed to infer both observed and unobserved dynamics, and ultimately the actual parameters of a biological neuron. Here we use a recurrent neural network to correct the outputs of a surrogate Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) model. The reservoir-surrogate HH model hybrid was trained on the voltage oscillations of a reference HH model and its driving current waveform. Out of the six reservoir-surrogate model architectures investigated, we identify one that most accurately recovers the reference membrane voltage and ion channel dynamics. The reservoir was thus effective in correcting model error in an externally driven nonlinear oscillator and in reconstructing the dynamics of both observed and unobserved state variables from the reference model mimicking an actual neuron.

Identifiers

PMID41813839
PMCPMC13100080

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.