Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38948881›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024

A network correspondence toolbox for quantitative evaluation of novel neuroimaging results.

Ru Q Kong, R Nathan Spreng, Aihuiping Xue, Richard Betzel, Jessica R Cohen, Jessica Damoiseaux, Felipe De Brigard, Simon B Eickhoff, Alex Fornito, Caterina Gratton and 12 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decades of neuroscience research has shown that macroscale brain dynamics can be reliably decomposed into a subset of large-scale functional networks, but the specific spatial topographies of these networks and the names used to describe them can vary across studies. Such discordance has hampered interpretation and convergence of research findings across the field. To address this problem, we have developed the Network Correspondence Toolbox (NCT) to permit researchers to examine and report spatial correspondence between their novel neuroimaging results and sixteen widely used functional brain atlases, consistent with recommended reporting standards developed by the Organization for Human Brain Mapping. The atlases included in the toolbox show some topographical convergence for specific networks, such as those labeled as default or visual. Network naming varies across atlases, particularly for networks spanning frontoparietal association cortices. For this reason, quantitative comparison with multiple atlases is recommended to benchmark novel neuroimaging findings. We provide several exemplar demonstrations using the Human Connectome Project task fMRI results and UK Biobank independent component analysis maps to illustrate how researchers can use the NCT to report their own findings through quantitative evaluation against multiple published atlases. The NCT provides a convenient means for computing Dice coefficients with spin test permutations to determine the magnitude and statistical significance of correspondence among user-defined maps and existing atlas labels. The NCT also includes functionality to incorporate additional atlases in the future. The adoption of the NCT will make it easier for network neuroscience researchers to report their findings in a standardized manner, thus aiding reproducibility and facilitating comparisons between studies to produce interdisciplinary insights.

Identifiers

PMID38948881
PMCPMC11212927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.