ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2026
Opportunities and pitfalls of data contextualization in neuroimaging.
Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatial Collinearity Constrains Multivariate Molecular-Enriched Network Estimation.Human brain mapping · 2026Article
- Linking human brain functional connectivity to underlying neurotransmission.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms of brain function and dysfunction is at the core of the neuroscience mission. However, the field's grasp of causal relationships between brain properties has been hindered by a focus on single modalities that neglects the complex interplay between the features found at different neural scales. Progress in neuroinformatics and the increasing availability of open datasets have helped overcome this limitation by facilitating the contextualization of brain maps against cellular, metabolic and network features. Despite the rapid uptake of data contextualization methods proposing that quantification of spatial similarity between brain maps may shed light on pathways of structure-function coupling, development and disease, their potential pitfalls have received little attention. In the context of neuroimaging research, these limitations include reliance on often small-sample and non-representative reference datasets, repeated use of the same brain maps across studies, and problems with intermodal and interindividual alignment. Applying data contextualization without considering these limitations can lead to circular reasoning, overfitting and correlational overreach, and limits the interpretation of findings to the properties of the source data. Here we provide a Roadmap of practical guidelines operating at the level of study design, analysis pipelines and interpretation of findings to encourage the development of best practices in data contextualization. A more informed use of brain map correlation approaches will improve mechanistic investigations and our understanding of causal relationships between brain properties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41927918What 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.