ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2025
Test-retest reliability of edge-level resting-state functional connectivity in people with aphasia.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing interest in using resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) to investigate language processing and recovery in post-stroke aphasia due to its limited dependence on an individual's ability to follow directions and perform tasks, or the severity of their aphasia. However, the test-retest reliability of RSFC in people with aphasia has not been established, raising questions about the strength and validity of inferences based on this technique. In this study, we examined the reliability of RSFC at the level of individual edges (i.e., connections) in 14 adults with chronic aphasia due to left-hemisphere stroke. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) between two resting-state scans obtained over a few days were computed for every edge in a whole-brain network and several cognitive and language subnetworks. Based on median ICCs, reliability was fair at longer scan durations (10-12 min) and better in most subnetworks than the whole brain. Reliability was also positively associated with connectivity strength and had a weak negative relationship with inter-node distance (i.e., the distance between the regions that form an edge). Edges in the right hemisphere were more reliable than those in the left hemisphere and between hemispheres, though all three sets of edges were fairly reliable. The results indicate that edge-level RSFC is acceptably reliable for continued use in aphasia research but highlight the need for strategies to ensure that inferences are based on valid results, such as using sufficiently long scans and focusing analyses on established subnetworks, especially in longitudinal contexts.
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.