ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
From maps to models: A survey on the reliability of small studies of task-based fMRI.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a powerful tool for studying brain function. However, the reliability and viability of small-sample studies remain a concern. While it is well understood that larger samples are preferable, researchers often need to interpret findings from small studies (e.g., when reviewing the literature, analyzing pilot data, or assessing subsamples). However, quantitative guidance for making these judgments remains scarce. To address this gap, we leverage the UK Biobank and the Human Connectome Project's Young Adult dataset to survey a range of standard task-based fMRI analyses, from obtaining regional activation maps to performing predictive modeling. These analyses are repeated using volumetric and two types of cortical surface data. For classic mass-univariate analyses (e.g., regional activation detection or cluster peak localization), studies with as few as 40 participants can be adequate depending on the effect size. For predictive modeling, similar sample sizes can be used to detect whether a feature is predictable, but developing stable, generalizable models typically requires cohorts at least an order of magnitude larger, and possibly two (hundreds or thousands). Together, these results clarify how reliability depends on the interplay of effect size, sample size, and analysis type, offering practical guidance for designing and interpreting small-scale task-fMRI studies.
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.