ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
The Hidden Landscape of Missed Effects in Human Functional Neuroimaging.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Functional neuroimaging aims to uncover brain processes underlying behavior and disease, yet studies are often underpowered to detect these effects. How this literature has shaped our understanding of brain function remains unknown, and little guidance exists for planning better powered studies. An underappreciated barrier is that commonly reported effect sizes across the brain are inflated, biasing study planning. Here, we introduce a correction for this inflation bias and show how more accurate studies can be planned using corrected effect size benchmarks from a mega-analysis of 63 typical studies across seven large datasets (52,979 participants). We find that common methods of planning studies based on uncorrected effects lead to roughly half the expected detections at typical sample sizes, with limited spatial overlap with original findings. These missed effects collectively explain meaningful additional variance in the desired outcome. We show how to recover missed effects by planning not only for power but also for a target number of detections via corrected benchmarks, or by taking a whole-brain approach with multivariate effects that individual research groups can detect (n < 50 compared to n > 1,000 for a typical univariate effect). These findings lay the groundwork for more informed study planning and a richer understanding of the widespread nature of brain effects, with implications for shared challenges (and solutions) across biomedicine.
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.