ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2025
Replicability of a resting-state functional connectivity study in profound early blindness.
Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been shown that the choice of preprocessing pipelines to remove contamination from functional magnetic resonance images can significantly impact the results, particularly in resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) studies. This underscores the critical importance of replication studies with different preprocessing methodologies. In this study, we attempted to reproduce the rsFC results presented in an original study by Bauer et al. in 2017 on a group of sighted control (SC) and early blind (EB) subjects. By using the original dataset, we utilized another widely used software package to investigate how applying different implementations of the original pipeline (RMin model) or a more rigorous and extensive preprocessing stream (RExt model) can alter the whole-brain rsFC results. Our replication study was not able to fully reproduce the findings of the original paper. Overall, RExt shifted the distribution of rsFC values and reduced functional network density more drastically compared with RMin and the original pipeline. Remarkably, the largest rsFC effects appeared to primarily belong to certain connection pairs, irrespective of the pipeline used, likely demonstrating immunity of the larger effects and the true results against suboptimal processing. This may highlight the significance of results verification across different computational streams in pursuit of the true findings.
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.