ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
SpikeCleaner: An Algorithm to Label Unit Quality After Automated Spike Sorting.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gap: Automated spike sorting algorithms have revolutionized the way neuronal activity is extracted from extracellular recordings, yet they remain imperfect. Specifically, inaccurate acceptance of noise-based units not only leaves researchers with clusters that require extensive manual curation, an essential but time-consuming process, that also leads to significant subjectivity in the selection of units. In an era of high-density probes like Neuropixels, where an hour of data can exceed 80 GB, manual curation is no longer scalable, automation of standard criteria can speed data curation and ensure quality of datasets. Here, we developed a semi-automated curation pipeline to label the quality of units after automated curation by Kilosort. Approach: Our algorithm standardizes criteria for labeling of Noise, Multi-Unit Activity (MUA), and Good Units using a combination of spike rate, spike timing metrics (from autocorrelogram), and waveform-based physiological features such as peak amplitude, slopes, half-width, and inter-channel correlation. Based on these features, clusters are assigned standardized labels (good, noise, multi-unit activity) that can be imported directly into Phy, where they serve as curation aids rather than absolute classifications, supporting but not replacing expert judgment. Heuristically, "noise" units are those unlikely to be neuronal in origin; "MUA" includes units with significant neural contribution (i.e., neuronal waveform) but with some degree of clear imperfection to be further cleaned, and "good" units are those without any clear deviation from ideal unit criteria. By ensuring accurate selection of acceptable units, we enable robust downstream analyses such as neural decoding and longitudinal tracking of neuron identity. Thresholds for all metrics were chosen to maximize the matching of algorithm output to that of 2 expert manual curators. Of note, users may alter thresholds either based on their own judgment or using an included tool to semi-automatically find thresholds that optimize SpikeCleaner with their own expert curation. Results: To benchmark, we compared the outputs of our algorithm to expert-labels curated in Phy by two expert users across three recordings. SpikeCleaner achieved an average of
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.