ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Statistical inference for same data meta-analysis in neuroimaging multiverse analyzes.
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 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Network-Level Convergence of Adiposity-Related Gray Matter Alterations: A Coordinate-Based Connectome Mapping Meta-Analysis With Imaging Transcriptomics.Human brain mapping · 2026Pooled it
- Pipeline variability: Friend or foe, depending on the goal: Comment on Germani et al. 2025.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- The Comet Toolbox: Improving robustness in network neuroscience through multiverse analysis.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers using task-functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data have access to a wide range of analysis tools to model brain activity. If not accounted for properly, this plethora of analytical approaches can lead to an inflated rate of false positives and contribute to the irreproducibility of neuroimaging findings. Multiverse analyses are a way to systematically explore pipeline variations on a given dataset. We focus on the setting where multiple statistic maps are produced as an output of a set of analyses originating from a single dataset. However, having multiple outputs for the same research question-corresponding to different analytical approaches-makes it especially challenging to draw conclusions and interpret the findings. Meta-analysis is a natural approach to extract consensus inferences from these maps, yet the traditional assumption of independence among input datasets does not hold here. In this work, we consider a suite of methods to conduct meta-analysis in the multiverse setting, which we call same data meta-analysis (SDMA), accounting for inter-pipeline dependence among the results. First, we assessed the validity of these methods in simulations. Then, we tested them on the multiverse outputs of two real-world multiverse analyses: "NARPS", a multiverse study originating from the same dataset analyzed by 70 different teams, and "HCP Young Adult", a more homogeneous multiverse analysis using 24 different pipelines analyzed by the same team. Our findings demonstrate the validity of our proposed SDMA models under inter-pipeline dependence, and provide an array of options, with different levels of relevance, for the analysis of multiverse outputs.
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.