ArticleNeuroImage2022
Spatially-enhanced clusterwise inference for testing and localizing intermodal correspondence.
Article in NeuroImage, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping Individual Differences in Intermodal Coupling in Neurodevelopment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Mapping individual differences in intermodal coupling in neurodevelopment.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The effect of spherical projection on spin tests for brain maps.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- SAN: Mitigating spatial covariance heterogeneity in cortical thickness data collected from multiple scanners or sites.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- SAN: mitigating spatial covariance heterogeneity in cortical thickness data collected from multiple scanners or sites.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Spatial-extent inference for testing variance components in reliability and heritability studies.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Network Enrichment Significance Testing in Brain-Phenotype Association Studies.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the increasing availability of neuroimaging data from multiple modalities-each providing a different lens through which to study brain structure or function-new techniques for comparing, integrating, and interpreting information within and across modalities have emerged. Recent developments include hypothesis tests of associations between neuroimaging modalities, which can be used to determine the statistical significance of intermodal associations either throughout the entire brain or within anatomical subregions or functional networks. While these methods provide a crucial foundation for inference on intermodal relationships, they cannot be used to answer questions about where in the brain these associations are most pronounced. In this paper, we introduce a new method, called CLEAN-R, that can be used both to test intermodal correspondence throughout the brain and also to localize this correspondence. Our method involves first adjusting for the underlying spatial autocorrelation structure within each modality before aggregating information within small clusters to construct a map of enhanced test statistics. Using structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging data from a subsample of children and adolescents from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort, we conduct simulations and data analyses where we illustrate the high statistical power and nominal type I error levels of our method. By constructing an interpretable map of group-level correspondence using spatially-enhanced test statistics, our method offers insights beyond those provided by earlier methods.
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.