PyNEST: A Convenient Interface to the NEST Simulator

The neural simulation tool NEST (http://www.nest-initiative.org) is a simulator for heterogeneous networks of point neurons or neurons with a small number of compartments. It aims at simulations of large neural systems with more than 104 neurons and 107 to 109 synapses. NEST is implemented in C++ and can be used on a large range of architectures from single-core laptops over multi-core desktop computers to super-computers with thousands of processor cores. Python (http://www.python.org) is a modern programming language that has recently received considerable attention in Computational Neuroscience. Python is easy to learn and has many extension modules for scientific computing (e.g. http://www.scipy.org). In this contribution we describe PyNEST, the new user interface to NEST. PyNEST combines NEST's efficient simulation kernel with the simplicity and flexibility of Python. Compared to NEST's native simulation language SLI, PyNEST makes it easier to set up simulations, generate stimuli, and analyze simulation results. We describe how PyNEST connects NEST and Python and how it is implemented. With a number of examples, we illustrate how it is used

PyNN: A Common Interface for Neuronal Network Simulators

Computational neuroscience has produced a diversity of software for simulations of networks of spiking neurons, with both negative and positive consequences. On the one hand, each simulator uses its own programming or configuration language, leading to considerable difficulty in porting models from one simulator to another. This impedes communication between investigators and makes it harder to reproduce and build on the work of others. On the other hand, simulation results can be cross-checked between different simulators, giving greater confidence in their correctness, and each simulator has different optimizations, so the most appropriate simulator can be chosen for a given modelling task. A common programming interface to multiple simulators would reduce or eliminate the problems of simulator diversity while retaining the benefits. PyNN is such an interface, making it possible to write a simulation script once, using the Python programming language, and run it without modification on any supported simulator (currently NEURON, NEST, PCSIM, Brian and the Heidelberg VLSI neuromorphic hardware). PyNN increases the productivity of neuronal network modelling by providing high-level abstraction, by promoting code sharing and reuse, and by providing a foundation for simulator-agnostic analysis, visualization and data-management tools. PyNN increases the reliability of modelling studies by making it much easier to check results on multiple simulators. PyNN is open-source software and is available from http://neuralensemble.org/PyNN

Automatically Selecting a Suitable Integration Scheme for Systems of Differential Equations in Neuron Models

On the level of the spiking activity, the integrate-and-fire neuron is one of the most commonly used descriptions of neural activity. A multitude of variants has been proposed to cope with the huge diversity of behaviors observed in biological nerve cells. The main appeal of this class of model is that it can be defined in terms of a hybrid model, where a set of mathematical equations describes the sub-threshold dynamics of the membrane potential and the generation of action potentials is often only added algorithmically without the shape of spikes being part of the equations. In contrast to more detailed biophysical models, this simple description of neuron models allows the routine simulation of large biological neuronal networks on standard hardware widely available in most laboratories these days. The time evolution of the relevant state variables is usually defined by a small set of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). A small number of evolution schemes for the corresponding systems of ODEs are commonly used for many neuron models, and form the basis of the neuron model implementations built into commonly used simulators like Brian, NEST and NEURON. However, an often neglected problem is that the implemented evolution schemes are only rarely selected through a structured process based on numerical criteria. This practice cannot guarantee accurate and stable solutions for the equations and the actual quality of the solution depends largely on the parametrization of the model. In this article, we give an overview of typical equations and state descriptions for the dynamics of the relevant variables in integrate-and-fire models. We then describe a formal mathematical process to automate the design or selection of a suitable evolution scheme for this large class of models. Finally, we present the reference implementation of our symbolic analysis toolbox for ODEs that can guide modelers during the implementation of custom neuron models

Run-Time Interoperability Between Neuronal Network Simulators Based on the MUSIC Framework

MUSIC is a standard API allowing large scale neuron simulators to exchange data within a parallel computer during runtime. A pilot implementation of this API has been released as open source. We provide experiences from the implementation of MUSIC interfaces for two neuronal network simulators of different kinds, NEST and MOOSE. A multi-simulation of a cortico-striatal network model involving both simulators is performed, demonstrating how MUSIC can promote inter-operability between models written for different simulators and how these can be re-used to build a larger model system. Benchmarks show that the MUSIC pilot implementation provides efficient data transfer in a cluster computer with good scaling. We conclude that MUSIC fulfills the design goal that it should be simple to adapt existing simulators to use MUSIC. In addition, since the MUSIC API enforces independence of the applications, the multi-simulation could be built from pluggable component modules without adaptation of the components to each other in terms of simulation time-step or topology of connections between the modules

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality