Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31226492›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

A guide to group effective connectivity analysis, part 2: Second level analysis with PEB.

Peter Zeidman, Amirhossein Jafarian, Mohamed L Seghier, Vladimir Litvak, Hayriye Cagnan, Cathy J Price, Karl J Friston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 229 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
229citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

229 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Rostral anterior cingulate network effective connectivity in depressed adolescents and associations with treatment response in a randomized controlled trial.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022
    Trial
  5. Neuroimaging correlates and predictors of response to repeated-dose intravenous ketamine in PTSD: preliminary evidence.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2021
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Distinct Brain Drivers and Shared Cerebello-Cortical Input in ADCY5 and SGCE Hyperkinetic Movements.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

169 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Peter ZeidmanWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK. Electronic address: peter.zeidman@ucl.ac.uk.
Amirhossein JafarianWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK.
Mohamed L SeghierCognitive Neuroimaging Unit, ECAE, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
Vladimir LitvakWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK.
Hayriye CagnanNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Level 6, West Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Cathy J PriceWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK.
Karl J FristonWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, 12 Queen Square, London, WC1N 3AR, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M023672/1Medical Research Council MR/R020418/1Wellcome Trust 203147/Z/16/ZWellcome Trust 205103/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper provides a worked example of using Dynamic Causal Modelling (DCM) and Parametric Empirical Bayes (PEB) to characterise inter-subject variability in neural circuitry (effective connectivity). It steps through an analysis in detail and provides a tutorial style explanation of the underlying theory and assumptions (i.e, priors). The analysis procedure involves specifying a hierarchical model with two or more levels. At the first level, state space models (DCMs) are used to infer the effective connectivity that best explains a subject's neuroimaging timeseries (e.g. fMRI, MEG, EEG). Subject-specific connectivity parameters are then taken to the group level, where they are modelled using a General Linear Model (GLM) that partitions between-subject variability into designed effects and additive random effects. The ensuing (Bayesian) hierarchical model conveys both the estimated connection strengths and their uncertainty (i.e., posterior covariance) from the subject to the group level; enabling hypotheses to be tested about the commonalities and differences across subjects. This approach can also finesse parameter estimation at the subject level, by using the group-level parameters as empirical priors. The preliminary first level (subject specific) DCM for fMRI analysis is covered in a companion paper. Here, we detail group-level analysis procedures that are suitable for use with data from any neuroimaging modality. This paper is accompanied by an example dataset, together with step-by-step instructions demonstrating how to reproduce the analyses.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAdultConnectomeGuidelines as TopicHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNerve NetPrefrontal Cortex

Identifiers

PMID31226492
PMCPMC6711451

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.