ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Evaluation and comparison of methods for neuronal parameter optimization using the Neuroptimus software framework.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to train your neuron: developing a detailed, up-to-date, multipurpose model of hippocampal CA1 pyramidal cells.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Deep learning-assisted tools to understand the structural biology of the synapse.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Finding optimal parameters for detailed neuronal models is a ubiquitous challenge in neuroscientific research. In recent years, manual model tuning has been gradually replaced by automated parameter search using a variety of different tools and methods. However, using most of these software tools and choosing the most appropriate algorithm for a given optimization task require substantial technical expertise, which prevents the majority of researchers from using these methods effectively. To address these issues, we developed a generic platform (called Neuroptimus) that allows users to set up neural parameter optimization tasks via a graphical interface, and to solve these tasks using a wide selection of state-of-the-art parameter search methods implemented by five different Python packages. Neuroptimus also offers several features to support more advanced usage, including the ability to run most algorithms in parallel, which allows it to take advantage of high-performance computing architectures. We used the common interface provided by Neuroptimus to conduct a detailed comparison of more than twenty different algorithms (and implementations) on six distinct benchmarks that represent typical scenarios in neuronal parameter search. We quantified the performance of the algorithms in terms of the best solutions found and in terms of convergence speed. We identified several algorithms, including covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy and particle swarm optimization, that consistently, without any fine-tuning, found good solutions in all of our use cases. By contrast, some other algorithms including all local search methods provided good solutions only for the simplest use cases, and failed completely on more complex problems. We also demonstrate the versatility of Neuroptimus by applying it to an additional use case that involves tuning the parameters of a subcellular model of biochemical pathways. Finally, we created an online database that allows uploading, querying and analyzing the results of optimization runs performed by Neuroptimus, which enables all researchers to update and extend the current benchmarking study. The tools and analysis we provide should aid members of the neuroscience community to apply parameter search methods more effectively in their research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.