ArticleBrain structure & function2017
Resting-state test-retest reliability of a priori defined canonical networks over different preprocessing steps.
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 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.NeuroImage · 2019Pooled it
- Article
- A Cerebellar Partitioning Method Using Spectral Clustering With Optimized Nonlinear Functional Connectivity.Human brain mapping · 2025Article
- Impact of data processing varieties on DCM estimates of effective connectivity from task-fMRI.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- An examination of the reliability of seed-to-seed resting state functional connectivity in tinnitus patients.Neuroimage. Reports · 2023Article
- Whole-brain dynamical modelling for classification of Parkinson's disease.Brain communications · 2023Article
- Evaluation of functional MRI-based human brain parcellation: a review.Journal of neurophysiology · 2022Review
- Towards an efficient validation of dynamical whole-brain models.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Test-retest reliability of modular-relevant analysis in brain functional network.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Resting-state networks in the course of aging-differential insights from studies across the lifespan vs. amongst the old.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2021Review
- Intrinsic Connectivity Patterns of Task-Defined Brain Networks Allow Individual Prediction of Cognitive Symptom Dimension of Schizophrenia and Are Linked to Molecular Architecture.Biological psychiatry · 2021Article
- Age differences in predicting working memory performance from network-based functional connectivity.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2020Article
- Neurobiological Divergence of the Positive and Negative Schizophrenia Subtypes Identified on a New Factor Structure of Psychopathology Using Non-negative Factorization: An International Machine Learning Study.Biological psychiatry · 2020Article
- Multimodal Parcellations and Extensive Behavioral Profiling Tackling the Hippocampus Gradient.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2019Article
- Network Architecture Underlying Basal Autonomic Outflow: Evidence from Frontotemporal Dementia.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2018Article
- Predicting personality from network-based resting-state functional connectivity.Brain structure & function · 2018Article
- Investigating the Intersession Reliability of Dynamic Brain-State Properties.Brain connectivity · 2018Article
- What Can Computational Models Contribute to Neuroimaging Data Analytics?Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2018Article
- On the integrity of functional brain networks in schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and advanced age: Evidence from connectivity-based single-subject classification.Human brain mapping · 2017Article
- Influences on the Test-Retest Reliability of Functional Connectivity MRI and its Relationship with Behavioral Utility.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Resting-state functional connectivity analysis has become a widely used method for the investigation of human brain connectivity and pathology. The measurement of neuronal activity by functional MRI, however, is impeded by various nuisance signals that reduce the stability of functional connectivity. Several methods exist to address this predicament, but little consensus has yet been reached on the most appropriate approach. Given the crucial importance of reliability for the development of clinical applications, we here investigated the effect of various confound removal approaches on the test-retest reliability of functional-connectivity estimates in two previously defined functional brain networks. Our results showed that gray matter masking improved the reliability of connectivity estimates, whereas denoising based on principal components analysis reduced it. We additionally observed that refraining from using any correction for global signals provided the best test-retest reliability, but failed to reproduce anti-correlations between what have been previously described as antagonistic networks. This suggests that improved reliability can come at the expense of potentially poorer biological validity. Consistent with this, we observed that reliability was proportional to the retained variance, which presumably included structured noise, such as reliable nuisance signals (for instance, noise induced by cardiac processes). We conclude that compromises are necessary between maximizing test-retest reliability and removing variance that may be attributable to non-neuronal sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.