Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30674933›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2019

Physical characteristics not psychological state or trait characteristics predict motion during resting state fMRI.

Hamed Ekhtiari, Rayus Kuplicki, Hung-Wen Yeh, Martin P Paulus

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. The Role of fMRI in Drug Development: An Update.Advances in neurobiology · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Observational
  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

4 authors.

Hamed EkhtiariLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA. hekhtiari@laureateinstitute.org.ORCID 0000-0001-6902-8798
Rayus KuplickiLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA.
Hung-Wen YehLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA.
Martin P PaulusLaureate Institute for Brain Research (LIBR), Tulsa, OK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Head motion (HM) during fMRI acquisition can significantly affect measures of brain activity or connectivity even after correction with preprocessing methods. Moreover, any systematic relationship between HM and variables of interest can introduce systematic bias. There is a large and growing interest in identifying neural biomarkers for psychiatric disorders using resting state fMRI (rsfMRI). However, the relationship between HM and different psychiatric symptoms domains is not well understood. The aim of this investigation was to determine whether psychiatric symptoms and other characteristics of the individual predict HM during rsfMRI. A sample of n = 464 participants (174 male) from the Tulsa1000, a naturalistic longitudinal study recruiting subjects with different levels of severity in mood/anxiety/substance use disorders based on the dimensional NIMH Research Domain Criteria framework was used for this study. Based on a machine learning (ML) pipeline with nested cross-validation to avoid overfitting, the stacked model with 15 anthropometric (like body mass index, BMI) and demographic (age and sex) variables identifies BMI and weight as the most important variables and explained 10.9 percent of the HM variance (95% CI: 9.9-11.8). In comparison ML models with 105 self-report measures for state and trait psychological characteristics identified nicotine and alcohol use variables as well as impulsivity inhibitory control variables but explain only 5 percent of HM variance (95% CI: 3.5-6.4). A combined ML model using all 120 variables did not perform significantly better than the model using only 15 physical variables (combined model 95% confidence interval: 10.2-12.4). Taken together, after considering physical variables, state or trait psychological characteristics do not provide additional power to predict motion during rsfMRI.

Indexed as

BrainBrain MappingMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingMental DisordersMovementAdolescentAdultAge FactorsFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsSex Factors

Identifiers

PMID30674933
PMCPMC6344520

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.