↓ Skip to main content

Credibility, Replicability, and Reproducibility in Simulation for Biomedicine and Clinical Applications in Neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Credibility, Replicability, and Reproducibility in Simulation for Biomedicine and Clinical Applications in Neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2018.00018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lealem Mulugeta, Andrew Drach, Ahmet Erdemir, C. A. Hunt, Marc Horner, Joy P. Ku, Jerry G. Myers, Rajanikanth Vadigepalli, William W. Lytton

Abstract

Modeling and simulation in computational neuroscience is currently a research enterprise to better understand neural systems. It is not yet directly applicable to the problems of patients with brain disease. To be used for clinical applications, there must not only be considerable progress in the field but also a concerted effort to use best practices in order to demonstrate model credibility to regulatory bodies, to clinics and hospitals, to doctors, and to patients. In doing this for neuroscience, we can learn lessons from long-standing practices in other areas of simulation (aircraft, computer chips), from software engineering, and from other biomedical disciplines. In this manuscript, we introduce some basic concepts that will be important in the development of credible clinical neuroscience models: reproducibility and replicability; verification and validation; model configuration; and procedures and processes for credible mechanistic multiscale modeling. We also discuss how garnering strong community involvement can promote model credibility. Finally, in addition to direct usage with patients, we note the potential for simulation usage in the area of Simulation-Based Medical Education, an area which to date has been primarily reliant on physical models (mannequins) and scenario-based simulations rather than on numerical simulations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 4 4%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 14 14%
Computer Science 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 30 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2021.
All research outputs
#7,302,305
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#350
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,751
of 296,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 296,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.