Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25830019›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2015

Improving functional magnetic resonance imaging reproducibility.

Cyril Pernet, Jean-Baptiste Poline

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
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.

Cyril PernetCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Neuroimaging Sciences, University of Edinburgh Chancellor's Building, 49 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SB UK.
Jean-Baptiste PolineHenry H Wheeler, Jr Brain Imaging Center, Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California at Berkeley, 3210 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability to replicate an entire experiment is crucial to the scientific method. With the development of more and more complex paradigms, and the variety of analysis techniques available, fMRI studies are becoming harder to reproduce.

resultsIn this article, we aim to provide practical advice to fMRI researchers not versed in computing, in order to make studies more reproducible. All of these steps require researchers to move towards a more open science, in which all aspects of the experimental method are documented and shared.

conclusionOnly by sharing experiments, data, metadata, derived data and analysis workflows will neuroimaging establish itself as a true data science.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingReproducibility of ResultsWorkflowCodeFunctional MRIOpen scienceReproducibilityScriptsWorkflows

Identifiers

PMID25830019
PMCPMC4379514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.