Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42418054›Full record

ArticleNeuroinformatics2026

Event Files are Common, But Semantic Event Metadata Remain Uneven in OpenNeuro BIDS Datasets.

Yuxuan Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Yuxuan XuCollege of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. yxu923@gatech.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0633-9628

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Open neuroscience repositories support reuse by making datasets accessible, but event level reuse also depends on whether task and stimulus annotations can be interpreted by software. I audited public latest OpenNeuro BIDS snapshots using public GraphQL metadata, recursive file trees, small events.json sidecars, and bounded events.tsv header ranges. Raw neural data were left untouched. Among 1,713 public latest snapshots, 1,483 had task metadata or observed event TSV files and formed the primary event relevant denominator. Event TSV files were present in 1,175/1,483 snapshots (79.2%; Wilson 95% CI 77.1%-81.2%). Candidate event JSON sidecars were present in 604/1,483 snapshots (40.7%), but an inheritance aware path and entity check found applicable JSON sidecars for 590/1,483 (39.8%), descriptive applicable sidecars for 550/1,483 (37.1%), and experiment specific applicable sidecars for 491/1,483 (33.1%). Across the full recursive file tree, 162,034/301,681 event TSV files (53.7%) had an applicable event JSON sidecar, and 147,412/301,681 (48.9%) had an applicable experiment specific sidecar. HED was detected in event JSON for 45/1,483 snapshots (3.0%) and in sampled TSV headers for 2/1,483 (0.13%). EEG had higher sidecar coverage and HED detection than fMRI, but 21.2% of EEG candidate JSON files were bookkeeping only. These results identify a repository visible metadata gap: event timing is common, but software interpretable event meaning remains uneven.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualMetadataNeurosciencesSemanticsAnimalsHumansSoftwareBIDS validatorBrain imaging data structureEvent annotationHierarchical event descriptorNeuroinformaticsOpenNeuro

Identifiers

PMID42418054
PMCPMC13346197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.