Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32246244›Full record

ArticleBrain structure & function2020

ALE meta-analysis, its role in node identification and the effects on estimates of local network organization.

Dimitri Falco, Asadur Chowdury, David R Rosenberg, Steven L Bressler, Vaibhav A Diwadkar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Dimitri FalcoCenter for Complex Systems and Brain Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Asadur ChowduryBrain Imaging Research Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Suite 5A, Tolan Park Medical Building, 3901 Chrysler Service Drive, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA.
David R RosenbergBrain Imaging Research Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Suite 5A, Tolan Park Medical Building, 3901 Chrysler Service Drive, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA.
Steven L BresslerCenter for Complex Systems and Brain Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Vaibhav A DiwadkarBrain Imaging Research Division, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Suite 5A, Tolan Park Medical Building, 3901 Chrysler Service Drive, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA. vdiwadka@med.wayne.edu.

Funding

Multimodal Investigation of Excitatory/Inhibitory Imbalances and Network Dysfunction Related to Motor Control in OCD Youth: ¹H fMRS and fMRI ApplicationsR01MH059299 · NIMH · WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DIWADKAR, VAIBHAV A., ROSENBERG, DAVID R · 1999 to 2025
$11.1M
National Institute of Mental Health (US) MH59299NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH059299
6 · The paper itself

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

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdolescentAdultBrainBrain MappingData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleHumansLikelihood FunctionsMaleMemory, Short-TermMeta-Analysis as TopicNeural PathwaysYoung AdultActivation likelihood estimatesDegree centralityIndividual differencesNode identification

Identifiers

PMID32246244
PMCPMC7350634

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.