Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40800478›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2024

The future of data analysis is now: Integrating generative AI in neuroimaging methods development.

Elizabeth DuPre, Russell Alan Poldrack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth DuPreDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Russell Alan PoldrackDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this perspective, we highlight how emerging artificial intelligence tools are likely to impact the experiences of researchers conducting computational fMRI analyses. While calls for the automatization of statistical procedures date back at least to the inception of "data science" as a field, generative artificial intelligence offers new opportunities to advance field practice. We highlight how these tools are poised to impact both new neuroimaging methods development in areas such as image quality control and in day-to-day practice when generating analysis code. We argue that considering generative artificial intelligence as a catalyst for computational neuroscience-rather than as unique tools in their own right-can substantially improve its positioning in the research ecosystem. In particular, we argue that generative artificial intelligence will reinforce the importance of existing open science initiatives, rather than supplanting them. Overall, we call for clearer metrics by which neuroimaging results-whether generated by individual research teams or by generative artificial intelligence technologies-can be meaningfully compared.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecode assistantscomputational scienceneuroimaging methodsopen science

Identifiers

PMID40800478
PMCPMC12272269

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.