ArticleF1000Research2017
A very simple, re-executable neuroimaging publication.
Article in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroscience Cloud Analysis As a Service: An open-source platform for scalable, reproducible data analysis.Neuron · 2022Article
- Article
- Opportunities for increased reproducibility and replicability of developmental neuroimaging.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2021Review
- Understanding the impact of preprocessing pipelines on neuroimaging cortical surface analyses.GigaScience · 2021Article
- Knowledge and Attitudes Among Life Scientists Toward Reproducibility Within Journal Articles: A Research Survey.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2021Article
- Evaluating the Reliability of Human Brain White Matter Tractometry.Aperture neuro · 2021Article
- A new virtue of phantom MRI data: explaining variance in human participant data.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Everything Matters: The ReproNim Perspective on Reproducible Neuroimaging.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2019Article
- Reproducing Polychronization: A Guide to Maximizing the Reproducibility of Spiking Network Models.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reproducible research is a key element of the scientific process. Re-executability of neuroimaging workflows that lead to the conclusions arrived at in the literature has not yet been sufficiently addressed and adopted by the neuroimaging community. In this paper, we document a set of procedures, which include supplemental additions to a manuscript, that unambiguously define the data, workflow, execution environment and results of a neuroimaging analysis, in order to generate a verifiable re-executable publication. Re-executability provides a starting point for examination of the generalizability and reproducibility of a given finding.
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.