Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27372336›Full record

ArticleBrain structure & function2017

A seed-based cross-modal comparison of brain connectivity measures.

Andrew T Reid, Felix Hoffstaedter, Gaolang Gong, Angela R Laird, Peter Fox, Alan C Evans, Katrin Amunts, Simon B Eickhoff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain structure & function, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Similarity between structural and proxy estimates of brain connectivity.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Studying neuroanatomy using MRI.Nature neuroscience · 2017
    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

8 authors.

Andrew T ReidInstitute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Jülich Research Center, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, 52428, Jülich, Germany. a.reid@donders.ru.nl.
Felix HoffstaedterInstitute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Jülich Research Center, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, 52428, Jülich, Germany.
Gaolang GongSchool of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, National Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing, China.
Angela R LairdDepartment of Physics, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA.
Peter FoxUniversity of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
Alan C EvansMcConnell Brain Imaging Center, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Katrin AmuntsInstitute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Jülich Research Center, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, 52428, Jülich, Germany.
Simon B EickhoffInstitute for Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1), Jülich Research Center, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, 52428, Jülich, Germany.

Funding

Meta-anaylsis in human brain mappingR01MH074457 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCIENCE CENTER · PI FOX, PETER THORNTON · 2006 to 2024
$10.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH074457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human neuroimaging methods have provided a number of means by which the connectivity structure of the human brain can be inferred. For instance, correlations in blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) signal time series are commonly used to make inferences about "functional connectivity." Correlations across samples in structural morphometric measures, such as voxel-based morphometry (VBM) or cortical thickness (CT), have also been used to estimate connectivity, putatively through mutually trophic effects on connected brain areas. In this study, we have compared seed-based connectivity estimates obtained from four common correlational approaches: resting-state functional connectivity (RS-fMRI), meta-analytic connectivity modeling (MACM), VBM correlations, and CT correlations. We found that the two functional approaches (RS-fMRI and MACM) had the best agreement. While the two structural approaches (CT and VBM) had better-than-random convergence, they were no more similar to each other than to the functional approaches. The degree of correspondence between modalities varied considerably across seed regions, and also depended on the threshold applied to the connectivity distribution. These results demonstrate some degrees of similarity between connectivity inferred from structural and functional covariances, particularly for the most robust functionally connected regions (e.g., the default mode network). However, they also caution that these measures likely capture very different aspects of brain structure and function.

Indexed as

Brain MappingConnectomeBrainHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMeta-Analysis as TopicNeural PathwaysOxygenOxygenCortical thicknessMACMMultimodal comparisonResting-state fMRIVBM

Identifiers

PMID27372336
PMCPMC5205581

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.