Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28067006›Full record

SynthesisHuman brain mapping2017

Addressing reverse inference in psychiatric neuroimaging: Meta-analyses of task-related brain activation in common mental disorders.

Emma Sprooten, Alexander Rasgon, Morgan Goodman, Ariella Carlin, Evan Leibu, Won Hee Lee, Sophia Frangou

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human brain mapping, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 188 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Categorization is 'baked' into the brain.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Emma SprootenDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Alexander RasgonDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Morgan GoodmanDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Ariella CarlinDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Evan LeibuDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Won Hee LeeDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Sophia FrangouDepartment of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · US

Funding

Deconstructing Psychoses Based on Patterns of Abnormal Brain ActivityR01MH104284 · NIMH · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI FRANGOU, SOPHIA · 2014 to 2017
$2.4M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH104284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies in psychiatry use various tasks to identify case-control differences in the patterns of task-related brain activation. Differently activated regions are often ascribed disorder-specific functions in an attempt to link disease expression and brain function. We undertook a systematic meta-analysis of data from task-fMRI studies to examine the effect of diagnosis and study design on the spatial distribution and direction of case-control differences on brain activation. We mapped to atlas regions coordinates of case-control differences derived from 537 task-fMRI studies in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, and obsessive compulsive disorder comprising observations derived from 21,427 participants. The fMRI tasks were classified according to the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). We investigated whether diagnosis, RDoC domain or construct and use of regions-of-interest or whole-brain analyses influenced the neuroanatomical pattern of results. When considering all primary studies, we found an effect of diagnosis for the amygdala and caudate nucleus and an effect of RDoC domains and constructs for the amygdala, hippocampus, putamen and nucleus accumbens. In contrast, whole-brain studies did not identify any significant effect of diagnosis or RDoC domain or construct. These results resonate with prior reports of common brain structural and genetic underpinnings across these disorders and caution against attributing undue specificity to brain functional changes when forming explanatory models of psychiatric disorders. Hum Brain Mapp 38:1846-1864, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

Brain MappingMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrainCase-Control StudiesDatabases, BibliographicFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMental DisordersOxygenOxygenanxiety disordersbipolar disorderfunctional magnetic resonance imagingmajor depressive disordermeta-analysesobsessive compulsive disorderResearch Domain Criteriaschizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID28067006
PMCPMC5347927
OpenAlexW2569957275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.