ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Comparing the carbon footprint of fMRI data processing and analysis approaches.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the carbon emissions of preprocessing and statistical analysis of fMRI data in software packages FSL, SPM, and fMRIPrep using an existing open access dataset. Carbon emissions for fMRIPrep were 30x larger than those of FSL, and 23x those of SPM. We also compared the scientific performance of each package, reflected by sensitivity to statistical activation. Overall, fMRIPrep demonstrated slightly superior statistical sensitivity to both FSL and SPM, with FSL also outperforming SPM. However, this pattern varied by brain region. Researchers analysing fMRI data can use these findings to inform their choice of software package, considering the carbon footprint of data processing alongside usability and quality of derived output. Researchers should be conscious of how and when tools that elicit heavy compute are used, minimising energy usage and subsequent file size when possible. Researchers developing and using such tools should consider the extent to which computationally expensive steps are necessary to produce high-quality results.
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.