Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35471545›Full record

ArticleAdvances in experimental medicine and biology2022

Whole-Brain Modelling: Past, Present, and Future.

John D Griffiths, Sorenza P Bastiaens, Neda Kaboodvand

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Secondary thalamic dysfunction underlies abnormal large-scale neural dynamics in chronic stroke.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

John D GriffithsDepartment of Psychiatry and Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. john.griffiths@utoronto.ca.
Sorenza P BastiaensInstitute of Medical Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Neda KaboodvandDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole-Brain Modelling is a scientific field with a short history and a long past. Its various disciplinary roots and conceptual ingredients extend back to as early as the 1940s. It was not until the late 2000s, however, that a nascent paradigm emerged in roughly its current form-concurrently, and in many ways joined at the hip, with its sister field of macro-connectomics. This period saw a handful of seminal papers authored by a certain motley crew of notable theoretical and cognitive neuroscientists, which have served to define much of the landscape of whole-brain modelling as it stands at the start of the 2020s. At the same time, the field has over the past decade expanded in a dozen or more fascinating new methodological, theoretical, and clinical directions. In this chapter we offer a potted Past, Present, and Future of whole-brain modelling, noting what we take to be some of its greatest successes, hardest challenges, and most exciting opportunities.

Indexed as

BrainConnectomeConnectomeMean-fieldNeural fieldNeural massNeuroimaging

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.