ArticleNeuroimage. Reports2026
Using, misusing, and improving online machine learning-based meta-analysis of neuroimaging published data: A perspective on NeuroQuery.
Article in Neuroimage. Reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Online, text-based meta-analysis tools for large databases represent a new digital advance for medical, health, and neuroscience research, among other fields. NeuroQuery is an instance of such a tool for neuroimaging research; it employs supervised machine learning to draw from over 13,000 publications and perform a meta-synthesis, generating predictive fMRI scans based on keyword combinations. Although NeuroQuery is a sophisticated tool, a lack of understanding of how it practically works and its limitations may lead to flawed results and conclusions, undermining its potential value. We review potential risks and limitations, including algorithm limitations, potential biases in the database, and user misinterpretation. Simulating the perspective of an end user, we present an example of unreliable but possible metanalysis results on autistic spectrum disorder (ASD). We then report an analysis of the underlying query from a sophisticated user perspective. Using the same examples, we illustrate possible improvements for the use of NeuroQuery and identify how this tool may be valuable in the context of emerging machine-learning meta-analytical approaches. Although a thorough understanding of NeuroQuery is helpful, we conclude that understanding its limitations plays a more critical role in ensuring validity and reliability of its use. While NeuroQuery is currently not appropriate for rigorous scientific analysis, it could be useful for hypothesis development, preliminary fMRI data mining, exploratory and supplemental analysis as well as literature survey.
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.