Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34013636›Full record

ReviewHuman brain mapping2021

Principles and open questions in functional brain network reconstruction.

Onerva Korhonen, Massimiliano Zanin, David Papo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. A complex network perspective on brain disease.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Onerva KorhonenDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, School of Science, Helsinki.ORCID 0000-0001-5033-4824
Massimiliano ZaninInstituto de Física Interdisciplinar y Sistemas Complejos IFISC (CSIC-UIB), Campus UIB, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5839-0393
David PapoFondazione Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Ferrara.ORCID 0000-0003-1889-2791

Funding

European Research Council 851255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Graph theory is now becoming a standard tool in system-level neuroscience. However, endowing observed brain anatomy and dynamics with a complex network representation involves often covert theoretical assumptions and methodological choices which affect the way networks are reconstructed from experimental data, and ultimately the resulting network properties and their interpretation. Here, we review some fundamental conceptual underpinnings and technical issues associated with brain network reconstruction, and discuss how their mutual influence concurs in clarifying the organization of brain function.

Indexed as

BrainFunctional NeuroimagingHumansNerve Netbrain dynamicsbrain topologyedgesfunctional imagingfunctional networksnodesresting statestructure-function relationshiptemporal networks

Identifiers

PMID34013636
PMCPMC8249902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.