4.6 Article

Reproducibility in Computational Neuroscience Models and Simulations

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 63, 期 10, 页码 2021-2035

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2016.2539602

关键词

Annotation; computational neuroscience; model sharing; reproducibility; simulator

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [T15LM007056, R01MH086638, U01EB017695]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Like all scientific research, computational neuroscience research must be reproducible. Big data science, including simulation research, cannot depend exclusively on journal articles as the method to provide the sharing and transparency required for reproducibility. Methods: Ensuring model reproducibility requires the use of multiple standard software practices and tools, including version control, strong commenting and documentation, and code modularity. Results: Building on these standard practices, model-sharing sites and tools have been developed that fit into several categories: 1) standardized neural simulators; 2) shared computational resources; 3) declarative model descriptors, ontologies, and standardized annotations; and 4) model-sharing repositories and sharing standards. Conclusion: A number of complementary innovations have been proposed to enhance sharing, transparency, and reproducibility. The individual user can be encouraged to make use of version control, commenting, documentation, and modularity in development of models. The community can help by requiring model sharing as a condition of publication and funding. Significance: Model management will become increasingly important as multiscale models become larger, more detailed, and correspondingly more difficult to manage by any single investigator or single laboratory. Additional big data management complexity will come as the models become more useful in interpreting experiments, thus increasing the need to ensure clear alignment between modeling data, both parameters and results, and experiment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据