Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42232074›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)

Dynamics-informed priors (DIP) for neural mass modelling.

Alessia Caccamo, Dominic M Dunstan, Mark P Richardson, Alexander D Shaw, Marc Goodfellow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Alessia CaccamoDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9159-2879
Dominic M DunstanDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Mark P RichardsonDepartment of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alexander D ShawDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Health & Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Marc GoodfellowDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neural mass models (NMMs) are important mathematical tools for inferring hidden neural mechanisms that generate healthy and pathological brain activities. A critical step in the inference process is parameter estimation, which calibrates NMMs based on measured neuroimaging data. While parameter estimation can be conducted via various approaches, one of the most influential methods is dynamic causal modelling (DCM). DCM adopts a Bayesian inference approach that relies on, and is sensitive to, the specification of prior parameter distributions reflecting

Indexed as

dynamic causal modellinggenetic algorithmsparameter estimationpharmacodynamics of anti-seizure medicationspectral analysis of M/EEGvariational Bayes

Identifiers

PMID42232074
PMCPMC13224311

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.