ArticleHuman brain mapping2024
Impact of data processing varieties on DCM estimates of effective connectivity from task-fMRI.
Article in Human brain mapping, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effective workflow from multimodal MRI data to model-based prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predicting response speed and age from task-evoked effective connectivity.Network neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- Impact of data processing varieties on DCM estimates of effective connectivity from task-fMRI.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective connectivity (EC) refers to directional or causal influences between interacting neuronal populations or brain regions and can be estimated from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data via dynamic causal modeling (DCM). In contrast to functional connectivity, the impact of data processing varieties on DCM estimates of task-evoked EC has hardly ever been addressed. We therefore investigated how task-evoked EC is affected by choices made for data processing. In particular, we considered the impact of global signal regression (GSR), block/event-related design of the general linear model (GLM) used for the first-level task-evoked fMRI analysis, type of activation contrast, and significance thresholding approach. Using DCM, we estimated individual and group-averaged task-evoked EC within a brain network related to spatial conflict processing for all the parameters considered and compared the differences in task-evoked EC between any two data processing conditions via between-group parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) analysis and Bayesian data comparison (BDC). We observed strongly varying patterns of the group-averaged EC depending on the data processing choices. In particular, task-evoked EC and parameter certainty were strongly impacted by GLM design and type of activation contrast as revealed by PEB and BDC, respectively, whereas they were little affected by GSR and the type of significance thresholding. The event-related GLM design appears to be more sensitive to task-evoked modulations of EC, but provides model parameters with lower certainty than the block-based design, while the latter is more sensitive to the type of activation contrast than is the event-related design. Our results demonstrate that applying different reasonable data processing choices can substantially alter task-evoked EC as estimated by DCM. Such choices should be made with care and, whenever possible, varied across parallel analyses to evaluate their impact and identify potential convergence for robust outcomes.
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.