↓ Skip to main content

Computer-Aided Experiment Planning toward Causal Discovery in Neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Computer-Aided Experiment Planning toward Causal Discovery in Neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2017.00012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Matiasz, Justin Wood, Wei Wang, Alcino J. Silva, William Hsu

Abstract

Computers help neuroscientists to analyze experimental results by automating the application of statistics; however, computer-aided experiment planning is far less common, due to a lack of similar quantitative formalisms for systematically assessing evidence and uncertainty. While ontologies and other Semantic Web resources help neuroscientists to assimilate required domain knowledge, experiment planning requires not only ontological but also epistemological (e.g., methodological) information regarding how knowledge was obtained. Here, we outline how epistemological principles and graphical representations of causality can be used to formalize experiment planning toward causal discovery. We outline two complementary approaches to experiment planning: one that quantifies evidence per the principles of convergence and consistency, and another that quantifies uncertainty using logical representations of constraints on causal structure. These approaches operationalize experiment planning as the search for an experiment that either maximizes evidence or minimizes uncertainty. Despite work in laboratory automation, humans must still plan experiments and will likely continue to do so for some time. There is thus a great need for experiment-planning frameworks that are not only amenable to machine computation but also useful as aids in human reasoning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 35 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 6 16%
Engineering 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Computer Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Other 10 26%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,679,004
of 23,592,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#243
of 774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,514
of 429,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,592,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 429,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.