Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36564545›Full record

ReviewNature neuroscience2023

Confronting racially exclusionary practices in the acquisition and analyses of neuroimaging data.

J A Ricard, T C Parker, E Dhamala, J Kwasa, A Allsop, A J Holmes

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 91 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

91 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY ALTERATIONS IN MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  16. Representing Brain-Behavior Associations by Retaining High-Motion Minoritized Youth.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J A Ricard *Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. jocelyn.ricard@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-9389
T C Parker *Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. termara.parker@yale.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6564-0012
E DhamalaDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
J KwasaNeuroscience Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
A AllsopDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0438-3163
A J HolmesDepartment of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6583-803X

Funding

Functional genomics of the human connectome in psychiatric illnessR01MH120080 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI AVRAM J HOLMES, Thomas Boon Thye Yeo · 2019 to 2026
$4.8M
Integrative analysis of genomics and imaging data from the BRAIN Initiative and other public data sourcesRF1MH123245 · NIMH · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI GERSTEIN, MARK BENDER, HOLMES, AVRAM J · 2021 to 2021
$1.3M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH120080NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH123245U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R01MH120080U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R01MH123245
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across the brain sciences, institutions and individuals have begun to actively acknowledge and address the presence of racism, bias, and associated barriers to inclusivity within our community. However, even with these recent calls to action, limited attention has been directed to inequities in the research methods and analytic approaches we use. The very process of science, including how we recruit, the methodologies we utilize and the analyses we conduct, can have marked downstream effects on the equity and generalizability of scientific discoveries across the global population. Despite our best intentions, the use of field-standard approaches can inadvertently exclude participants from engaging in research and yield biased brain-behavior relationships. To address these pressing issues, we discuss actionable ways and important questions to move the fields of neuroscience and psychology forward in designing better studies to address the history of exclusionary practices in human brain mapping.

Indexed as

NeurosciencesHumansNeuroimagingResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID36564545
PMCPMC12884511

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.