Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40899757›Full record

ReviewHuman brain mapping2025

A Practical Guide to Identifying Robust Clusters in Neuroimaging Data.

Johan Nakuci, Dobromir Rahnev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Human brain mapping, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Human striatal population state dynamics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Johan NakuciU.S. Army DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0269-8559
Dobromir RahnevSchool of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

Army Research Laboratory W911SR-15-2-0001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clustering algorithms are essential tools in data-driven research, enabling the discovery of hidden structures in complex datasets. In neuroimaging, data-driven research and clustering have been instrumental in identifying and unraveling hidden relationships. However, there are concerns associated with exploratory techniques in that they can provide erroneous results unless properly verified. Here we address this issue by examining three widely used approaches: K-means, community detection via modularity maximization, and hierarchical clustering. We first highlight their methodologies, applications, and limitations. We then discuss the critical steps for rigorous validation strategies. We further show how to apply these steps using both synthetic and real data, and provide code to facilitate their application. By contextualizing clustering within robust methodological frameworks, we demonstrate the potential of clustering-based analyses to reveal meaningful patterns and provide practical guidelines for their application in neuroscience and related fields. Clustering, when appropriately applied, is a powerful and indispensable computational method.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeuroimagingCluster AnalysisHumansclustering reliabilityconsensus‐based clusteringhierarchical clusteringK‐meansmodularity‐maximizationSVM

Identifiers

PMID40899757
PMCPMC12406288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.