Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25349916›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2014

Making big data open: data sharing in neuroimaging.

Russell A Poldrack, Krzysztof J Gorgolewski

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 191 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
191citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

191 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Representing Brain-Behavior Associations by Retaining High-Motion Minoritized Youth.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026
    Article
  9. Radiomics in spinal research: a narrative review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

131 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

2 authors.

Russell A PoldrackDepartment of Psychology, Stanford Univeristy, Stanford, California, USA.
Krzysztof J Gorgolewski1] Department of Psychology, Stanford Univeristy, Stanford, California, USA. [2] Max Planck Research Group Neuroanatomy and Connectivity, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

The development of neural responses to punishment in adolescenceR21DA034316 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI POLDRACK, RUSSELL A · 2013 to 2014
$723k
NIDA NIH HHS 1R21DA034316-S1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, major advances have been made in the availability of shared neuroimaging data, such that there are more than 8,000 shared MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) data sets available online. Here we outline the state of data sharing for task-based functional MRI (fMRI) data, with a focus on various forms of data and their relative utility for subsequent analyses. We also discuss challenges to the future success of data sharing and highlight the ethical argument that data sharing may be necessary to maximize the contribution of human subjects.

Indexed as

BrainNeuroimagingDatabases, FactualData CollectionHumansInformation DisseminationMagnetic Resonance Imaging

Identifiers

PMID25349916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.