ArticleFrontiers in neuroinformatics2024
Reproducible brain PET data analysis: easier said than done.
Article in Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
While a great deal of recent effort has focused on addressing a perceived reproducibility crisis within brain structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and functional MRI research communities, this article argues that brain positron emission tomography (PET) research stands on even more fragile ground, lagging behind efforts to address MRI reproducibility. We begin by examining the current landscape of factors that contribute to reproducible neuroimaging data analysis, including scientific standards, analytic plan pre-registration, data and code sharing, containerized workflows, and standardized processing pipelines. We then focus on disparities in the current status of these factors between brain MRI and brain PET. To demonstrate the positive impact that further developing such reproducibility factors would have on brain PET research, we present a case study that illustrates the many challenges faced by one laboratory that attempted to reproduce a community-standard brain PET processing pipeline. We identified key areas in which the brain PET community could enhance reproducibility, including stricter reporting policies among PET dedicated journals, data repositories, containerized analysis tools, and standardized processing pipelines. Other solutions such as mandatory pre-registration, data sharing, code availability as a condition of grant funding, and online forums and standardized reporting templates, are also discussed. Bolstering these reproducibility factors within the brain PET research community has the potential to unlock the full potential of brain PET research, propelling it toward a higher-impact future.
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.