Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41567512›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2025

Robustness, spatial detail, and pitfalls of fixed ICA dimensionality in resting-state fMRI networks at 1.5, 3, and 7 T.

Pierfrancesco Ambrosi, Marta Lancione, Paolo Cecchi, Michela Tosetti, Laura Biagi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Pierfrancesco AmbrosiLaboratory of Medical Physics and Magnetic Resonance, IRCCS Stella Maris Foundation, Pisa, Italy.
Marta LancioneLaboratory of Medical Physics and Magnetic Resonance, IRCCS Stella Maris Foundation, Pisa, Italy.
Paolo CecchiImago7 Research Foundation, Pisa, Italy.
Michela TosettiLaboratory of Medical Physics and Magnetic Resonance, IRCCS Stella Maris Foundation, Pisa, Italy.
Laura BiagiLaboratory of Medical Physics and Magnetic Resonance, IRCCS Stella Maris Foundation, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resting-state fMRI functional connectivity analysis is usually performed with seed-based methods that strongly rely on user-dependent definitions of regions of interest. Data-driven methods like independent component analysis (ICA) can mitigate this need. However, the number of components that should be expected in an fMRI acquisition, which determines the model order of the ICA, is not defined, and it is not uniformly chosen across studies. This variability is further complicated by the dependence of component number on field strength, with higher field strengths typically yielding more detectable components. Therefore, relying on a predetermined number may influence the results. Here, we compare functional maps obtained through ICA analysis at different magnetic field strengths and at various levels of spatial detail. Our results confirm the presence of the most frequently reported resting-state networks across field strengths and demonstrate that higher magnetic field strength enables more robust detection of functional networks with greater spatial detail. We also show that: (1) fixing the number of components, although improving interpretability of group results, may provide an incomplete picture of brain function; (2) a greater number of components is consistently identified at higher field strength, suggesting that the model order should be adapted according to both field strength and spatial detail.

Indexed as

BOLD fMRIbrain connectivityfunctional connectivity (FC)independent component analyses (ICA)resting state fMRI (rsfMRI)

Identifiers

PMID41567512
PMCPMC12816346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.