Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
219
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
219 results for “EPIC”
EPIC: Annotated epileptic EEG independent components for artifact reduction
<p>Scalp electroencephalogram is a non-invasive multi-channel biosignal that records the brain’s electrical activity. It is highly susceptible to noise that might overshadow important data. Independent component analysis is one of the most used artifact removal methods. Independent component analysis separates data into different components, although it can not automatically reject the noisy ones. Therefore, experts are needed to decide which components must be removed before reconstructing the data. To automate this method, researchers have developed classifiers to identify noisy components. However, to build these classifiers, they need annotated data. Manually classifying independent components is a time-consuming task. Furthermore, few labeled data are publicly available. This dataset is composed of a source of annotated electroencephalogram independent components acquired from patients with epilepsy (EPIC Dataset). This dataset contains 77,426 independent components obtained from approximately 613 hours of electroencephalogram, visually inspected by two experts, which was already successfully utilized to develop independent component classifiers.</p>
ePIC logo (black) - large and small
<p>This is the most popular version of the ePIC logo, in black. Large and small versions included.</p> <p> </p>
Converting between the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) urinary subscales: modeling and external validation
<p><strong>Background</strong>: Prostate-related quality of life can be assessed with a variety of different questionnaires. The 50-item Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) are two widely used options. The goal of this study was, therefore, to develop and validate a model that is able to convert between the EPIC and the IPSS to enable comparisons across different studies. </p> <p><strong>Methods</strong>: Three hundred forty-seven consecutive patients who had previously received radiotherapy and surgery for prostate cancer at two institutions in Switzerland and Germany were contacted via mail and instructed to complete both questionnaires. The Swiss cohort was used to train and internally validate different machine learning models using fourfold cross-validation. The German cohort was used for external validation.</p> <p><strong>Results</strong>: Converting between the EPIC Urinary Irritative/Obstructive subscale and the IPSS using linear regressions resulted in mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 3.88 and 6.12, which is below the respective previously published minimal important differences (MIDs) of 5.2 and 10 points. Converting between the EPIC Urinary Summary and the IPSS was less accurate with MAEs of 5.13 and 10.45, similar to the MIDs. More complex model architectures did not result in improved performance in this study. The study was limited to the German versions of the respective questionnaires.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions</strong>: Linear regressions can be used to convert between the IPSS and the EPIC Urinary subscales. While the equations obtained in this study can be used to compare results across clinical trials, they should not be used to inform clinical decision-making in individual patients. Trial registration This study was retrospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov on January 14th, 2022, under the registration number NCT05192876.</p>
European Parliament Interpreting Corpus (EPIC)
<p>EPIC v2.0 is a parallel and trilingual (English, Italian, and Spanish) corpus of European Parliament (EP) speeches and their simultaneous interpretations. The data were collected from EP sessions in Feb–Apr, and July 2004, including the speeches of 175 speakers and an unknown number of interpreters. The current version of the EPIC (v2.0) contains 692,585 tokens (source: 247,385, target: 445,200) and 83 h 36 min 14 s of audiovisual recordings (source videos: 27 h 32 min 20 s, target audio: 56 h 3 min 54 s). It is fully transcribed, annotated, and aligned at the recording–transcript level.</p>
EPIC Aff: A multi-label segmentation visual affordances dataset.
<p>This is the EPIC-Aff dataset introduced on the ICCV 2023 paper "Multi-label affordance mapping from egocentric vision".</p>
FIGURE 4 in Oviparity, viviparity or plasticity in reproductive mode of the olm Proteus anguinus: an epic misunderstanding caused by prey regurgitation?
FIGURE 4 Proteus anguinus larva (captive-bred from Tular Cave Laboratory, photograph by Gregor Aljančič) and Salamandra salamandra larva in comparison. Both larvae are about 3 cm in size. Note the difference in size and shape of the head and trunk length, but similarities in presence of eyes and pigmentation. PHOTOGRAPH OF proteus anguinus LARVA BY GREGOR ALJANČIČ AND salamandra salamandra LARVA BY JAMES BURGON
FIGURE 3 in Oviparity, viviparity or plasticity in reproductive mode of the olm Proteus anguinus: an epic misunderstanding caused by prey regurgitation?
FIGURE 3 Scanning electron micrographs of the olm's teeth marks on regurgitated salamander (Salamandra salamandra) larvae. Heads of all larvae are facing towards the left. A) Teeth marks (arrowheads) on the dorsal side of the head corresponding to the position of the olm's jaw and B) parallel teeth marks on the left side of the head above the gills (g) of the larvae shown in fig. 2A. C) Teeth marks on the anterior edge of laceration above the left gills (g) and D) above the right eye (e) of the head of the larva shown in fig. 2B and C. (Scale bars represents 500 µm).
FIGURE 1 in Oviparity, viviparity or plasticity in reproductive mode of the olm Proteus anguinus: an epic misunderstanding caused by prey regurgitation?
FIGURE 1 Image of an olm (Proteus anguinus) regurgitating a fire salamander (Salamandra salamandra) larva. A) Image of an olm (22.5 cm of total length), moments before B) it started to regurgitate a salamander larva (3.1 cm of total length). C) shows a close-up of the salamander head and the larva fully regurgitated, with D) showing details of the still alive salamander larva.
Converting between the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) urinary subscales: modeling and external validation
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Genome-wide association analysis of type 2 diabetes in the EPIC-InterAct study
<p><span><span>Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a global public health challenge. Whilst the advent of genome-wide association studies has identified >400 genetic variants associated with T2D, our understanding of its biological mechanisms and translational insights is still limited. The EPIC-InterAct project, centred in 8 countries in the European Prospective Investigations into Cancer and Nutrition study, is one of the largest prospective studies of T2D. Established as a nested case-cohort study to investigate the interplay between genetic and lifestyle behavioural factors on the risk of T2D, a total of 12,403 individuals were identified as incident T2D cases and a representative sub-cohort of 16,154 individuals was selected from a larger cohort of 340,234 participants with a follow-up time of 3.99 million person-years. We describe the results from a genome-wide association analysis between more than 8.9 million SNPs and T2D risk among 22,326 individuals (9,978 cases and 12,348 non-cases) from the EPIC-InterAct study. The summary statistics to be shared provide a valuable resource to facilitate further investigations into the genetics of T2D. </span></span></p>
A gallery of images of the ePIC detector
<p>A selection of images of the ePIC detector, current as of Summer 2024</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-TAMU maize
<p>This is model output from EPIC-TAMU for maize as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-TAMU wheat
<p>This is model output from EPIC-TAMU for wheat as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-Boku maize
<p>This is model output from EPIC-Boku for maize as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-Boku wheat
<p>This is model output from EPIC-Boku for wheat as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA rice
<p>This is model output from EPIC-IIASA for rice as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-Boku rice
<p>This is model output from EPIC-Boku for rice as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA wheat
<p>This is model output from EPIC-IIASA for wheat as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-Boku soy
<p>This is model output from EPIC-Boku for soy as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA soy
<p> </p> <p>This is model output from EPIC-IIASA for soy as part of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set.</p> <p>The data have been generated following the modeling protocol of Elliott et al. (2015) and has been used to evaluate the models (Müller et al., 2017). A data description paper has been published in Scientific Data (Müller et al. 2019).</p> <p>References:</p> <p>Elliott J, Müller C, Deryng D, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Boote KJ, Büchner M, Foster I, Glotter M, Heinke J, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Mueller ND, Ray DK, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, and Sheffield J. 2015, The Global Gridded Crop Model intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261-277, doi:10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Chryssanthacopoulos J, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Glotter M, Hoek S, Iizumi T, Izaurralde RC, Jones C, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Ray DK, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Song CX, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2017, Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403-1422, doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017</p> <p>Müller C, Elliott J, Kelly D, Arneth A, Balkovic J, Ciais P, Deryng D, Folberth C, Hoek S, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Khabarov N, Lawrence P, Liu W, Olin S, Pugh TAM, Reddy A, Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Sakurai G, Schmid E, Skalsky R, Wang X, de Wit A, and Yang H. 2019, The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scientific Data, 6, 50, doi: 10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.