ReviewNature methods2026
External validation improves generalizability, replicability and reproducibility in predictive models for neuroimaging.
Review in Nature methods, 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.
- Prediction of cognitive performance by demographics, sleep, and brain morphometry: machine learning findings from ENIGMA-Sleep Working Group.Research square · 2026Article
- Data-driven vestibular fMRI in PPPD and residual dizziness after BPPV: a narrative methodological review of AI-based phenotyping and longitudinal modeling.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Poor generalizability continues to hinder mapping brain activity to behavior using human neuroimaging data. A potential solution is predictive modeling, which evaluates generalizability in unseen data from the same dataset. However, predictive models often fail external validation-a stricter test of generalizability involving evaluation in an independent dataset. In this Perspective, we explain how evaluating generalizability via external validation can improve replicability (illusory generalizability and bias) and reproducibility (data leakage and data manipulations). We also provide advice on statistical power, dataset shift and training models. A model's success in external validation provides evidence for its generalizability, but interpretations depend on the population characteristics of the training and external datasets. Even failed external validation constitutes an opportunity for scientific insight or methodological adjustments. Sharing data and models, combined with standalone external validation studies, will increase the prevalence of external validation. In turn, an increased focus on external validation can drive more generalizable, replicable and reproducible neuroimaging results.
Identifiers
42203860What 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.