ArticleScientific reports2026
Cross-vendor reliability of functional and structural brain connectivity in a travelling cohort.
Article in Scientific 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
Scanner-related bias is a major challenge in multi-centre neuroimaging studies. This study assesses cross-vendor reliability of functional and structural brain connectivity (FC, SC) and evaluates the effect of neuroComBat harmonisation. A travelling cohort (n = 10) of healthy participants was scanned on a Siemens Prisma 3T and a Philips Achieva 3.0T system within one week. Reliability metrics of FC (Pearson’s r) and SC (based on iFOD2 & SIFT2) were calculated for each edge before and after neuroComBat harmonisation. At the subject-level, reliability was poor for FC (ICC: 0.22 ± 0.23, wsCV: 62 ± 14%, unharmonised) and fair for SC (ICC: 0.43 ± 0.32, wsCV: 28 ± 15%, unharmonised). At the group-level, Bland-Altman analyses showed minimal systematic bias between scanners in both modalities, but with wide limits of agreement. Pattern similarity was 0.63 (FC) and 0.98 (SC). G Theory analyses showed the scanner accounted for 11.8% (FC) and 7.9% (SC) of the variance. After harmonisation, subject-level reliability only improved marginally, but scanner-dependent variability dropped to 0.8% and 1.1% in FC and SC, respectively. Overall, reliability was higher for SC than FC mirroring their differential temporal stability, for group-averaged than subject-level data, and for full-connectome organisation than for individual edges. NeuroComBat worked as designed, successfully mitigating scanner-dependent variance at the group but not the subject level.
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.