ArticleHuman brain mapping2019
From nodes to networks: How methods for defining nodes influence inferences regarding network interactions.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monotonicity in graph theoretic summaries of fMRI data acquired during human learning.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Brain connectivity and academic skills in English learners.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2024Article
- ALE meta-analysis, its role in node identification and the effects on estimates of local network organization.Brain structure & function · 2020Article
- From nodes to networks: How methods for defining nodes influence inferences regarding network interactions.Human brain mapping · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional connectivity (FC) analysis of fMRI data typically rests on prior identification of network nodes from activation profiles. We compared Activation Likelihood Estimate (ALE) and the Experimentally Derived Estimate (EDE) approaches to network node identification and functional inference for both verbal and visual forms of working memory. ALE arrives at canonical activation maxima that are assumed to reliably represent peaks of brain activity underlying a psychological process (e.g., working memory). By comparison, EDEs of activation maxima are typically derived from individual participant data, and are thus sensitive to individual participant activation profiles. Here, nodes were localized by both ALE and EDE methods for each participant, and subsequently extracted time series were compared using connectivity analysis. Two sets of significance tests were performed: (1) correlations computed between nodal time series of each method were compared, and (2) correlations computed between network edges (functional connections) of each network node pair were compared. Large proportions of edge correlations significantly differed between methods. ALE effectively summarizes working memory network node locations across studies and subjects, but the sensitivity to individual functional loci suggest that EDE methods provide individualized estimates of network connectivity. We suggest that a hybrid method incorporating both ALE and EDE is optimal for network inference.
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.