ArticlePloS one2024
When most fMRI connectivity cannot be detected: Insights from time course reliability.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Neural embedding of frailty in cognitively unimpaired aging and dementia across Latin America.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Cardiovascular risk factors and the allostatic interoceptive network in dementia.Cardiovascular research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The level of correlation between two phenomena is limited by the accuracy at which these phenomena are measured. Despite numerous group reliability studies, the strength of the fMRI connectivity that can be detected given the within-subject time course reliability remains elusive. Moreover, it is unclear how within-subject time course reliability limits the robust detection of connectivity on the group level. We estimated connectivity from a working memory task. The grand mean connectivity of the connectome equaled r = 0.41 (95% CI 0.31-0.50) for the test run and r = 0.40 (95% CI 0.29-0.49) for the retest run. The mean connectivity decreased to r = 0.09 (95% CI 0.03-0.16) when test-retest reliability and auto-correlations of single time courses were considered, indicating that less than a quarter of connectivity is detectable. The square root of the detectable connectivity r = 0.09 suggests that only 0.81% of the connectivity is explained by working memory-related time course fluctuations. Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST)-based analysis revealed that within-subject time course reliability markedly affects the significance levels at which paths can be detected at the group level. This was in particular the case when samples were small or connectome coordinates were randomly selected. With a sample of 50 individuals, the connectome of a test session was completely reproduced in a retest session at P < 2.54e-6 despite the fact that almost no connectivity was explained by the cognitive experiment. Within-subject time course reliability can offer valuable insights on the detectable connectivity and should be assessed more frequently.
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.