ReviewBrain imaging and behavior2021
Strategies to solve the reverse inference fallacy in future MRI studies of schizophrenia: a review.
Review in Brain imaging and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Domain-Specific and Domain-General Functional Brain Alterations in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Task-Based and Functional Connectivity Meta-Analysis.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Inferring Mental States from Brain Data: Ethico-legal Questions about Social Uses of Brain Data.The Hastings Center report · 2025Article
- In the era of whole-brain mapping for the exploration of mental disorders, we need to rethink our methods of rodent model establishment.Translational 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Few advances in schizophrenia research have been translated into clinical practice, despite 60 years of serum biomarkers studies and 50 years of genetic studies. During the last 30 years, neuroimaging studies on schizophrenia have gradually increased, partly due to the beautiful prospect that the pathophysiology of schizophrenia could be explained entirely by the Human Connectome Project (HCP). However, the fallacy of reverse inference has been a critical problem of the HCP. For this reason, there is a dire need for new strategies or research "bridges" to further schizophrenia at the biological level. To understand the importance of research "bridges," it is vital to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the recent literature. Hence, in this review, our team has summarized the recent literature (1995-2018) about magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of schizophrenia in terms of regional and global structural and functional alterations. We have also provided a new proposal that may supplement the HCP for studying schizophrenia. As postulated, despite the vast number of MRI studies in schizophrenia, the lack of homogeneity between the studies, along with the relatedness of schizophrenia with other neurological disorders, has hindered the study of schizophrenia. In addition, the reverse inference cannot be used to diagnose schizophrenia, further limiting the clinical impact of findings from medical imaging studies. We believe that multidisciplinary technologies may be used to develop research "bridges" to further investigate schizophrenia at the single neuron or neuron cluster levels. We have postulated about future strategies for overcoming the current limitations and establishing the research "bridges," with an emphasis on multimodality imaging, molecular imaging, neuron cluster signals, single transmitter biomarkers, and nanotechnology. These research "bridges" may help solve the reverse inference fallacy and improve our understanding of schizophrenia for future studies.
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.