Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32203486›Full record

ArticleNature protocols2020

Toward a unified framework for interpreting machine-learning models in neuroimaging.

Lada Kohoutová, Juyeon Heo, Sungmin Cha, Sungwoo Lee, Taesup Moon, Tor D Wager, Choong-Wan Woo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature protocols, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

90 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Neural Representations and Functional Connections Underlie Subjective Positive Affect.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

30 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.

Lada KohoutováCenter for Neuroscience Imaging Research, Institute for Basic Science, Suwon, South Korea.
Juyeon HeoDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea.
Sungmin ChaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea.
Sungwoo LeeCenter for Neuroscience Imaging Research, Institute for Basic Science, Suwon, South Korea.
Taesup MoonDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea.
Tor D WagerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. tor.d.wager@dartmouth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1936-5574
Choong-Wan WooCenter for Neuroscience Imaging Research, Institute for Basic Science, Suwon, South Korea. waniwoo@skku.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7423-5422

Funding

The Neural Bases of Placebo Effects and their Relation to Regulatory ProcessesR01MH076136 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI WAGER, TOR D. · 2007 to 2023
$8.5M
fMRI-based Biomarkers for Multiple Components of PainR01DA035484 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI WAGER, TOR D. · 2013 to 2017
$3.1M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA035484NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH076136U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01DA035484U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01MH076136
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning is a powerful tool for creating computational models relating brain function to behavior, and its use is becoming widespread in neuroscience. However, these models are complex and often hard to interpret, making it difficult to evaluate their neuroscientific validity and contribution to understanding the brain. For neuroimaging-based machine-learning models to be interpretable, they should (i) be comprehensible to humans, (ii) provide useful information about what mental or behavioral constructs are represented in particular brain pathways or regions, and (iii) demonstrate that they are based on relevant neurobiological signal, not artifacts or confounds. In this protocol, we introduce a unified framework that consists of model-, feature- and biology-level assessments to provide complementary results that support the understanding of how and why a model works. Although the framework can be applied to different types of models and data, this protocol provides practical tools and examples of selected analysis methods for a functional MRI dataset and multivariate pattern-based predictive models. A user of the protocol should be familiar with basic programming in MATLAB or Python. This protocol will help build more interpretable neuroimaging-based machine-learning models, contributing to the cumulative understanding of brain mechanisms and brain health. Although the analyses provided here constitute a limited set of tests and take a few hours to days to complete, depending on the size of data and available computational resources, we envision the process of annotating and interpreting models as an open-ended process, involving collaborative efforts across multiple studies and laboratories.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAdolescentAdultBrainDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleNeuroimagingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32203486
PMCPMC9533325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.