Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35759502›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Comparing the reliability of different ICA algorithms for fMRI analysis.

Pengxu Wei, Ruixue Bao, Yubo Fan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Pengxu WeiBeijing Key Laboratory of Rehabilitation Technical Aids for Old-Age Disability, Key Laboratory of Neuro-Functional Information and Rehabilitation Engineering of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, National Research Center for Rehabilitation Technical Aids, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3544-0535
Ruixue BaoSchool of Rehabilitation Medicine, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yubo FanKey Laboratory of Biomechanics and Mechanobiology (Beihang University), Ministry of Education, Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering and Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Independent component analysis (ICA) has been shown to be a powerful blind source separation technique for analyzing functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data sets. ICA can extract independent spatial maps and their corresponding time courses from fMRI data without a priori specification of time courses. Some popular ICA algorithms such as Infomax or FastICA generate different results after repeated analysis from the same data volume, which is generally acknowledged as a drawback for ICA approaches. The reliability of some ICA algorithms has been explored by methods such as ICASSO and RAICAR (ranking and averaging independent component analysis by reproducibility). However, the exact algorithmic reliability of different ICA algorithms has not been examined and compared with each other. Here, the quality index generated with ICASSO and spatial correlation coefficients were used to examine the reliability of different ICA algorithms. The results demonstrated that Infomax running 10 times with ICASSO could generate consistent independent components from fMRI data sets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingElectric Power SuppliesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID35759502
PMCPMC9236259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.