ArticleNeuroImage2008
An objective assessment of fetal and neonatal auditory evoked responses.
Article in NeuroImage, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetoencephalography and the infant brain.NeuroImage · 2019Pooled it
- Pediatric Magnetoencephalography in Clinical Practice and Research.Neuroimaging clinics of North America · 2020Review
- Article
- Habituation of visual evoked responses in neonates and fetuses: a MEG study.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe propose to use cross-correlation function to determine significant fetal and neonatal evoked responses (ERs).
methodsWe quantify ERs by cross-correlation between the stimulus time series and the recorded brain signals. The statistical significance of the correlation is calculated by surrogate analysis. For validation of our approach we investigated a model which mimics the generation of ERs. The model assumes a fixed latency of the ER and contains two parameters, epsilon and lambda. Whether or not the system responds to a given stimulus is controlled by epsilon. The amount to which the system is excited from the base line (background activity) is governed by lambda. We demonstrate the technique by applying it to auditory evoked responses from four fetuses (21 records) between 27 and 39 weeks of gestational age and four neonates (eight records).
resultsThe method correctly identified the ER and the latency incorporated in the model. A combined analysis of fetuses and neonates data resulted in a significant negative correlation between age and latency.
conclusionsThe analysis of ER, especially for fetal and newborn recordings, should be based on advanced data analysis including the assessment of the significance of responses. The negative correlation between age and latency indicates the neurological maturation. SIGNIFICANCE: The proposed method can be used to objectively assess the ER in fetuses and neonates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.