Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25180301›Full record

ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2014

Graph analysis of functional brain networks: practical issues in translational neuroscience.

Fabrizio De Vico Fallani, Jonas Richiardi, Mario Chavez, Sophie Achard

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04057105 (Targeted Noninvasive Brain Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 152 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
152citing 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.

NCT04057105 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Targeted Noninvasive Brain Stimulation (T-NIBS) for Upper Extremity Motor Rehabilitation in Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorKessler FoundationRan2020 to 2024Enrolled14ConditionsUpper Extremity Dysfunction, Traumatic Brain InjuryArmsActive High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS), MusicGlove
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Functional Connectivity Is Dominated by Aperiodic, Rather Than Oscillatory, Coupling.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Altered Brain-Behavior Association During Resting State is a Potential Psychosis Risk Marker.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

92 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Fabrizio De Vico FallaniINRIA Paris-Rocquencourt, ARAMIS team, Paris, France CNRS, UMR-7225, Paris, France INSERM, U1227, Paris, France Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, Paris, France Univ. Sorbonne UPMC, UMR S1127, Paris, France fabrizio.devicofallani@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8035-7883
Jonas RichiardiFunctional Imaging in Neuropsychiatric Disorders Laboratory, Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Laboratory for Neuroimaging and Cognition, Department of Neurology and Department of Neurosciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Mario ChavezCNRS, UMR-7225, Paris, France.
Sophie AchardUniv. Grenoble Alpes, GIPSA-Lab, F-38000 Grenoble, France CNRS, GIPSA-Lab, F-38000 Grenoble, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The brain can be regarded as a network: a connected system where nodes, or units, represent different specialized regions and links, or connections, represent communication pathways. From a functional perspective, communication is coded by temporal dependence between the activities of different brain areas. In the last decade, the abstract representation of the brain as a graph has allowed to visualize functional brain networks and describe their non-trivial topological properties in a compact and objective way. Nowadays, the use of graph analysis in translational neuroscience has become essential to quantify brain dysfunctions in terms of aberrant reconfiguration of functional brain networks. Despite its evident impact, graph analysis of functional brain networks is not a simple toolbox that can be blindly applied to brain signals. On the one hand, it requires the know-how of all the methodological steps of the pipeline that manipulate the input brain signals and extract the functional network properties. On the other hand, knowledge of the neural phenomenon under study is required to perform physiologically relevant analysis. The aim of this review is to provide practical indications to make sense of brain network analysis and contrast counterproductive attitudes.

Indexed as

Models, NeurologicalBrainHumansNerve NetNeural PathwaysNeurosciencesTranslational Research, Biomedicalbrain connectivityclinical neurosciencefunctional neuroimagingnetwork theory

Identifiers

PMID25180301
PMCPMC4150298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.