Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30405329›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018

Teaching Computational Reproducibility for Neuroimaging.

K Jarrod Millman, Matthew Brett, Ross Barnowski, Jean-Baptiste Poline

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Rigor and reproducibility instruction in academic medical libraries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Learning from reproducing computational results: introducing three principles and thePhilosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Human Cognitive Neuroscience as It Is Taught.Frontiers in psychology · 2020
    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

4 authors.

K Jarrod MillmanDivision of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.
Matthew BrettCollege of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Ross BarnowskiApplied Nuclear Physics Program, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, United States.
Jean-Baptiste PolineNeurology and Neurosurgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

Resource DiscoveryP41EB019936 · NIBIB · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI David Nelson Kennedy · 2016 to 2026
$15.2M
Exposing the Deep Content of the Publication: Knowledge Extraction for Neuroimaging in Child PsychiatryR01MH083320 · NIMH · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI FRAZIER, JEAN A, KENNEDY, DAVID NELSON · 2009 to 2020
$6.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB019936NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH083320
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe a project-based introduction to reproducible and collaborative neuroimaging analysis. Traditional teaching on neuroimaging usually consists of a series of lectures that emphasize the big picture rather than the foundations on which the techniques are based. The lectures are often paired with practical workshops in which students run imaging analyses using the graphical interface of specific neuroimaging software packages. Our experience suggests that this combination leaves the student with a superficial understanding of the underlying ideas, and an informal, inefficient, and inaccurate approach to analysis. To address these problems, we based our course around a substantial open-ended group project. This allowed us to teach: (a) computational tools to ensure computationally reproducible work, such as the Unix command line, structured code, version control, automated testing, and code review and (b) a clear understanding of the statistical techniques used for a basic analysis of a single run in an MR scanner. The emphasis we put on the group project showed the importance of standard computational tools for accuracy, efficiency, and collaboration. The projects were broadly successful in engaging students in working reproducibly on real scientific questions. We propose that a course on this model should be the foundation for future programs in neuroimaging. We believe it will also serve as a model for teaching efficient and reproducible research in other fields of computational science.

Indexed as

computational reproducibilitydata scienceeducationFMRIneuroimagingPython languagescientific computingstatistics

Identifiers

PMID30405329
PMCPMC6204391

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.