ArticleBrain structure & function2020
ALE meta-analysis, its role in node identification and the effects on estimates of local network organization.
Article in Brain structure & function, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning evoked centrality dynamics in the schizophrenia brain: entropy, heterogeneity, and inflexibility of brain networks.Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience : JPN · 2025Article
- Monotonicity in graph theoretic summaries of fMRI data acquired during human learning.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- The importance of covert memory consolidation in schizophrenia: Dysfunctional network profiles of the hippocampus and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Psychiatry research. Neuroimaging · 2024Article
- The mesolimbic system and the loss of higher order network features in schizophrenia when learning without reward.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Sustained attention induces altered effective connectivity of the ascending thalamo-cortical relay in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Functional connectivity analyses for task-based fMRI data are generally preceded by methods for identification of network nodes. As there is no general canonical approach to identifying network nodes, different identification techniques may exert different effects on inferences drawn regarding functional network properties. Here, we compared the impact of two different node identification techniques on estimates of local node importance (based on Degree Centrality, DC) in two working memory domains: verbal and visual. The two techniques compared were the commonly used Activation Likelihood Estimate (ALE) technique (with node locations based on data aggregation), against a hybrid technique, Experimentally Derived Estimation (EDE). In the latter, ALE was first used to isolate regions of interest; then participant-specific nodes were identified based on individual-participant local maxima. Time series were extracted at each node for each dataset and subsequently used in functional connectivity analysis to: (1) assess the impact of choice of technique on estimates of DC, and (2) assess the difference between the techniques in the ranking of nodes (based on DC) in the networks they produced. In both domains, we found a significant Technique by Node interaction, signifying that the two techniques yielded networks with different DC estimates. Moreover, for the majority of participants, node rankings were uncorrelated between the two techniques (85% for the verbal working memory task and 92% for the visual working memory task). The latter effect is direct evidence that the identification techniques produced different rankings at the level of individual participants. These results indicate that node choice in task-based fMRI data exerts downstream effects that will impact interpretation and reverse inference regarding brain function.
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.