Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42266203›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Global search metaheuristics for neural mass model calibration.

Dominic M Dunstan, Mark P Richardson, Jonathan E Fieldsend, Marc Goodfellow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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. Dynamics-informed priors (DIP) for neural mass modelling.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
    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.

Dominic M DunstanDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1973-1404
Mark P RichardsonDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jonathan E FieldsendDepartment of Computer Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Marc GoodfellowDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7282-7280

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural mass models (NMMs) are often used to help understand the circuitry that underpins observed brain dynamics in basic and clinical research. A key step is to fuse models with data so that model parameter values can be inferred for a given data set-a process called model fitting or model calibration. This can shed light on putative physiological mechanisms underlying the observed signals. Calibration is notoriously challenging in biology since models are often non-identifiable, high-dimensional, and nonlinear. Established methods such as dynamic causal modelling (DCM) circumvent some of these issues, for example, by incorporating prior information and employing fast local search methods in the space of feasible parameter values ("parameter space"). However, it is pertinent to better understand the potential limitations of these methods so that we can increase our confidence in the use of models to interpret brain activity, and to develop new approaches as required. Here, we use tools from dynamical systems theory to illustrate some of the complexities of model calibration in an archetypal NMM. We use this information to motivate the use of calibration methods that work across large regions of parameter space, rather than focusing on informative priors or localised search methods. We subsequently evaluate the performance of approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) and evolutionary search metaheuristics (ESMs) for mapping feasible sets of parameters for which an NMM can recreate electroencephalographic recordings during an eyes-closed resting state. Our results demonstrate the superiority of ESMs in terms of computational efficiency and accuracy. Furthermore, we elucidate potential reasons why ESMs are able to perform better than ABC, that is, that they are less susceptible to biases induced by the complexity of underlying cost landscapes. These results highlight the importance of incorporating ESMs in future efforts to model brain dynamics.

Indexed as

approximate Bayesian computationEEGevolutionary search metaheuristicsmodel calibrationneural mass modelparameter inference

Identifiers

PMID42266203
PMCPMC13245216

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.