MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405652711 · doi:10.3389/fninf.2024.1538787

Editorial: Emerging trends in large-scale data analysis for neuroscience research

2024· editorial· en· W4405652711 on OpenAlexaff
Farouk S. Nathoo, Olave E. Krigolson, Fang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroinformatics · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceNeuroscienceScale (ratio)NeuroinformaticsComputer scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary aim of this research topic is to showcase recent progress in data-driven approaches for studying the brain. It focuses on tackling challenges in managing, processing, and interpreting large-scale neuroscience data while identifying future research opportunities. This topic will delve into state-of-the-art tools and methods for analyzing, integrating, and interpreting extensive neuroscience datasets.Excluding the retraction, there are five papers published in this research topic. Hsu et al. consider the problem of warping and registering brain images to a standard template, which can introduce spatial errors and reduce accuracy. They develop LYNSU (Locating by YOLO and Segmenting by U-Net), an automated method for segmenting neuropils in fluorescence images from the FlyCircuit database, eliminating the need for warping and facilitating high-throughput anatomical analysis and connectomics in the Drosophila brain. They demonstrate performance comparable to manual annotations, with a 3D Intersection-over-Union (IoU) of 0.869, and segments a neuropil in about 7 seconds.Miranda considers task-based fMRI studies and develops a fast Bayesian function-onscalar model to estimate population-level activation maps for the working memory task. The proposed approach uses a canonical polyadic (CP) tensor decomposition to extract shared and subject-specific features from individual coeBicient maps. The subject-specific features are modeled as functions of covariates within a Bayesian framework that accounts for correlations in the CP-extracted features. The proposed decomposition facilitates fast computation and allows eBicient MCMC estimation of population-level activation maps.Dang, Fermin and Machizawa consider the problem of decoding and feature selection in high dimensions. They introduce the optimized Forward Variable Selection Decoder (oFVSD) toolbox as a feature selection methodology that combines forward variable selection (FVS) and hyperparameter optimization integrated with 18 machine learning models. They test sex classification and age range regression on 1,113 structural MRI datasets and demonstrate performance improvements over models without FVS. The methodology is available as an open-source Python package. Bologna et al. consider the construction of data-driven brain models using neural simulation environments and large-scale computing facilities. They developed the EBRAINS Hodgkin-Huxley Neuron Builder (HHNB), a web resource for building single cell neural models via the extraction of activity features from electrophysiological data with estimation based on a genetic algorithm. HHNB then allows simulation of the brain model using the estimated model through an interactive setting. Kim et al. consider the visualization of gene expression obtained using RNA sequencing across the brain. Molecular patterns emerging from spatial transcriptomic data can be associated with circuitry and function in the neocortex. They propose a web app LaminaRGeneVis for visualizing laminar gene expression across datasets collected using bulk, single-nucleus, and spatial RNA sequencing. Allowing for normalizations across diBerent datasets, the app supports single-and multi-gene analyses, data visualization and statistics for the adult human neocortex.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.079
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.079
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0150.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.014

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroinformaticsSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207