MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132790336 · doi:10.1109/embc.2013.6610407

Blind Deconvolution of Hodgkin-Huxley neuronal model

2013· article· en· W2132790336 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Lankarany, Wei‐Ping Zhu, M.N.S. Swamy, Taro Toyoizumi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological neuron modelDeconvolutionComputer scienceRobustness (evolution)Kalman filterAlgorithmNeuronArtificial intelligenceNeural codingBlind deconvolutionArtificial neural networkNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuron transforms information via a complex interaction between its previous states, its intrinsic properties, and the synaptic input it receives from other neurons. Inferring synaptic input of a neuron only from its membrane potential (output) that contains both sub-threshold and action potentials can effectively elucidate the information processing mechanism of a neuron. The term coined blind deconvolution of Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) neuronal model is defined, for the first time in this paper, to address the problem of reconstructing the hidden dynamics and synaptic input of a single neuron modeled by the HH model as well as estimating its intrinsic parameters only from single trace of noisy membrane potential. The blind deconvolution is accomplished via a recursive algorithm whose iterations contain running an extended Kalman filtering followed by the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm. The accuracy and robustness of the proposed algorithm have been demonstrated by our simulations. The capability of the proposed algorithm makes it particularly useful to understand the neural coding mechanism of a neuron.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207