Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23160115›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2013

Why share data? Lessons learned from the fMRIDC.

John Darrell Van Horn, Michael S Gazzaniga

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Searching Data: A Review of Observational Data Retrieval Practices in Selected Disciplines.Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2019
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Data sharing and the future of science.Nature communications · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

John Darrell Van HornLaboratory of Neuro Imaging (LONI), Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, 635 Charles E. Young Drive SW, Suite 225 Los Angeles, CA 90095-7334, USA. jvanhorn@loni.ucla.edu
Michael S Gazzaniga

Funding

OPTIMIZING fMRI PROCESSING PIPELINESP20MH072580 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI GAZZANIGA, MICHAEL S · 2005 to 2006
$1.8M
NIMH NIH HHS P20 MH072580
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuroimaging and the discipline of cognitive neuroscience have grown together in lock-step with each pushing the other toward an improved ability to explore and examine brain function and form. However successful neuroimaging and the examination of cognitive processes may seem today, the culture of data sharing in these fields remains underdeveloped. In this article, we discuss our own experience in the development of the fMRI Data Center (fMRIDC) - a large-scale effort to gather, curate, and openly share the complete data sets from published research articles of brain activation studies using fMRI. We outline the fMRIDC effort's beginnings, how it operated, note some of the sociological reactions we received, and provide several examples of prominent new studies performed using data drawn from the archive. Finally, we provide comment on what considerations are needed for successful neuroimaging databasing and data sharing as existing and emerging efforts take the next steps in archiving and disseminating the field's valuable and irreplaceable data.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationMagnetic Resonance ImagingDatabases as TopicHumansDatabasingData sharingNeuroimagingNeuroinformatics

Identifiers

PMID23160115
PMCPMC3807237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.