Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30872469›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Ergodicity is sufficient but not necessary for group-to-individual generalizability.

Janne K Adolf, Eiko I Fried

Abstract readLetterComment
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. From childhood trauma to complex PTSD: a network analysis.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. What ergodicity means for you.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. The non-ergodic nature of mental health and psychiatric disorders: implications for biomarker and diagnostic research.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Ergodic Subspace Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2020
    Article
  19. Reply to Hamaker and Ryan: Within-sample temporal instability in cross-sectional estimates.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  20. Reply to Adolf and Fried: Conditional equivalence and imperatives for person-level science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Janne K AdolfResearch Group of Quantitative Psychology and Individual Differences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; janne.adolf@kuleuven.be.
Eiko I FriedDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

ResearchResearch SubjectsHumans

Identifiers

PMID30872469
PMCPMC6452692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.