ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024
Consistent activation differences versus differences in consistent activation: Evaluating meta-analytic contrasts.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Brain Structural Abnormalities in Addiction Disorders: Transdiagnostic Meta-Analyses.Human brain mapping · 2026Pooled it
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
Meta-analytic contrasts are a promising aspect of coordinate-based meta-analyses in neuroimaging research as they facilitate the statistical comparison of two meta-analytic results. They have been used for a multitude of comparisons, such as task conditions, cognitive processes, and groups. However, it remains to be tested how the results of meta-analytic contrasts relate to those of classic meta-analyses and vice versa. Here, we present a comprehensive empirical investigation of this issue using four datasets from different cognitive domains: working memory, working memory load, cognitive interference processing, and emotional face processing. For all four datasets, we compared the results of a standard meta-analysis across prototypical contrasts (condition A > condition B) reported in individual experiments with those of a contrast between two individual meta-analyses of the same conditions (meta-analysis condition A > meta-analysis condition B). In the meta-analytic contrasts, similar brain regions as in the standard meta-analysis were found but with relatively distinct spatial activation patterns. Additionally, fewer regions were revealed in the meta-analytic contrasts, especially in areas where the conditions spatially overlapped. This can be ascribed to the loss of information on the strength of activations in meta-analytic contrasts, across which standard meta-analysis summarize. In one dataset, additional regions were found in the meta-analytic contrast, potentially due to task effects. Our results demonstrate that meta-analytic contrasts can yield similar results to standard meta-analyses but are sparser. This confirms the overall validity, but also limited ability to capture all regions found in standard meta-analyses. Notable differences observed in some cases indicate that such contrasts cannot be taken as an easy substitute for classic meta-analyses of experiment-level contrasts, warranting further research into the boundary conditions for agreement.
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.