Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26032714›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2015

Reproducibility of brain-cognition relationships using three cortical surface-based protocols: An exhaustive analysis based on cortical thickness.

Kenia Martínez, Sarah K Madsen, Anand A Joshi, Shantanu H Joshi, Francisco J Román, Julio Villalon-Reina, Miguel Burgaleta, Sherif Karama, Joost Janssen, Eugenio Marinetto and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Influence of Processing Pipeline on Cortical Thickness Measurement.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2020
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

13 authors.

Kenia MartínezDepartamento de Psicología Biológica y de la Salud, Facultad De Psicología, Universidad Autónoma De Madrid, Spain.
Sarah K MadsenUSC Mark and Mary Stevens Neuroimaging and Informatics Institute, Imaging Genetics Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Anand A JoshiBiomedical Imaging Group, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Shantanu H JoshiDepartment of Neurology, Ahmanson Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, University of California Los Angeles, California.
Francisco J RománDepartamento de Psicología Biológica y de la Salud, Facultad De Psicología, Universidad Autónoma De Madrid, Spain.
Julio Villalon-ReinaBiomedical Imaging Group, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Miguel BurgaletaCenter for Brain and Cognition, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.
Sherif KaramaMontreal Neurological Institute (MNI), Montreal, Canada.
Joost JanssenDepartamento de Psiquiatría del Niño y del Adolescente, Instituto De Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Eugenio MarinettoDepartamento de Psiquiatría del Niño y del Adolescente, Instituto De Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.
Manuel DescoCiber del área de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Madrid, Spain.
Paul M ThompsonBiomedical Imaging Group, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Roberto ColomDepartamento de Psicología Biológica y de la Salud, Facultad De Psicología, Universidad Autónoma De Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People differ in their cognitive functioning. This variability has been exhaustively examined at the behavioral, neural and genetic level to uncover the mechanisms by which some individuals are more cognitively efficient than others. Studies investigating the neural underpinnings of interindividual differences in cognition aim to establish a reliable nexus between functional/structural properties of a given brain network and higher order cognitive performance. However, these studies have produced inconsistent results, which might be partly attributed to methodological variations. In the current study, 82 healthy young participants underwent MRI scanning and completed a comprehensive cognitive battery including measurements of fluid, crystallized, and spatial intelligence, along with working memory capacity/executive updating, controlled attention, and processing speed. The cognitive scores were obtained by confirmatory factor analyses. T1 -weighted images were processed using three different surface-based morphometry (SBM) pipelines, varying in their degree of user intervention, for obtaining measures of cortical thickness (CT) across the brain surface. Distribution and variability of CT and CT-cognition relationships were systematically compared across pipelines and between two cognitively/demographically matched samples to overcome potential sources of variability affecting the reproducibility of findings. We demonstrated that estimation of CT was not consistent across methods. In addition, among SBM methods, there was considerable variation in the spatial pattern of CT-cognition relationships. Finally, within each SBM method, results did not replicate in matched subsamples.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBrainBrain MappingCognitionFemaleHumansIndividualityMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeuropsychological TestsOrgan SizeReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultcortical thicknesshigher order cognitionsurface-based methods

Identifiers

PMID26032714
PMCPMC6868955

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.