ArticleScientific reports2026
Quantitative analysis of representation asymmetry in human cadaveric white matter dissection literature.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human cadaveric white matter dissection studies constitute a fundamental component of microsurgical neuroanatomy. However, whether individual white matter pathways are represented uniformly across the cadaveric dissection literature has not been systematically quantified. This study aimed to construct a tract-level anatomical dataset and to examine how major white matter pathways are represented across published human cadaveric dissection studies, with particular attention to fiber-class differences and potential methodological sources of uneven representation. A literature-based quantitative anatomical analysis was conducted using published human cadaveric cerebral white matter dissection studies identified through a structured study selection process. Twenty predefined major white matter pathways were classified into association, projection, and commissural fiber systems. Tract demonstration status was extracted and organized into a standardized representation matrix. Tract-level prevalence, fiber-class differences, study-level asymmetry, effect size estimates, and inequality-based representation metrics were analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods. Forty-two studies, encompassing 691 cerebral hemispheres, were included. Tract representation varied considerably across anatomically distinct fiber systems. Association pathways demonstrated greater overall representation frequencies compared with commissural systems, while nonparametric analyses confirmed significant differences among fiber classes (Kruskal-Wallis H = 9.27, p = 0.0097). The inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus demonstrated the highest overall representation prevalence, whereas deep projection and smaller commissural pathways, particularly the auditory radiation, posterior commissure, and habenular commissure, exhibited markedly limited representation. The present study shows that tract representation in the cadaveric white matter dissection literature is uneven and appears to be shaped by both anatomical organization and methodological factors, favoring superficially accessible pathways. These findings provide a novel quantitative framework for evaluating representation patterns, methodological bias, and tract-level variability within microsurgical white matter dissection research.
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.