Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42422553›Full record

ArticleAperture neuro2025

Consensus recommendations for clinical functional MRI applied to language mapping.

Natalie L Voets, Manzar Ashtari, Christian F Beckmann, Christopher F Benjamin, Tammie Benzinger, Jeffrey R Binder, Alberto Bizzi, Bruce Bjornson, Edward F Chang, Linda Douw and 23 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aperture neuro, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Rapid fMRI Paradigm for Localisation of the Language Network.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Dynamic neuroplasticity of language networks: The intersection of bilingualism and epilepsy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
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

33 authors.

Natalie L VoetsFMRIB-WIN Centre, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford.
Manzar AshtariDepartments of Ophthalmology and Radiology, University of Pennsylvania.
Christian F BeckmannDepartment of Cognitive Neuroscience & Donders Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Christopher F BenjaminVancouver General Hospital.
Tammie BenzingerMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine.
Jeffrey R BinderDepartments of Neurology and Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin.
Alberto BizziNeuroradiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta.
Bruce BjornsonBC Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics (Neurology), University of British Columbia.
Edward F ChangDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco.
Linda DouwDepartment of Anatomy and Neurosciences, Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
Jodie GawrylukDepartment of Psychology, University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Karsten GeletnekyKlinikum Darmstadt, Academic Teaching Hospital of the Universities Frankfurt/Main and Heidelberg-Mannheim.
Matthew F GlasserDepartments of Radiology and Neuroscience, Washington University School of Medicine.
Sven HallerCentre D'Imagerie Medicale de Cornavin and Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva.
Mark JenkinsonFMRIB-WIN Centre, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford.
Jorge JovicichCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento.
Eric LeuthardtDepartment of Neurosurgery, Washington University School of Medicine.
Asim MianSchool of Medicine, Boston University.
Thomas E NicholsFMRIB-WIN Centre, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford.
Oiwi Parker JonesNuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford.
Cyril PernetNeurobiology Research Unit, Rigshospitalet.
Puneet PlahaNuffield Department of Neurosurgery, University of Oxford.
Monika Połczyńska-BletsosDepartment of Psychiatry and Biobehavioural Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles.
Cathy J PriceWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London.
Geert-Jan RuttenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Elisabeth-Tweesteden Hospital Tilburg.
Michael ScheelInstitute of Neuroradiology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Joshua S ShimonyMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine.
Joanna SierpowskaCognition and Brain Plasticity Unit & Neuroscience Institute, Dept. of Cognition, Development and Educational Psychology, University of Barcelona.
Lynne J WilliamsBC Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics (Neurology), University of British Columbia.
Ghoufran TalibBC Children's Hospital, Department of Pediatrics (Neurology), University of British Columbia.
Michael ZeinehDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University.
Andreas BartschRadiologie Bamberg.
Susan BookheimerDepartment of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

Funding

RECONSTRUCTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS OF CEREBRAL CORTEXR01MH060974 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI VAN ESSEN, DAVID C · 1999 to 2024
$12.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH060974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ample reports highlight fMRI's added value to guide neurosurgical interventions near brain regions supporting speech and language. However, fMRI's usefulness for clinical language mapping remains controversial, partly fueled by 1) differences from clinical standard tools it is often compared against, and 2) wide heterogeneity in how data are acquired, analyzed and interpreted. Both factors limit objective assessment of the benefits and efficacy of presurgical fMRI. This underscores the need for standardization of fMRI protocols to enable data pooling across centers and facilitate learning from patient outcomes. The OHBM Working Group on clinical fMRI language mapping was formed in 2017. Its scope was to review and propose best practice recommendations addressing specific challenges posed by applications in patient populations. Objectives were to: 1) consider language tasks and designs, optimized for specific clinical objectives, and incorporating modifications for patients with existing impairments; 2) offer practical guidance, based on high-quality research, for each step from fMRI acquisition and analysis to reporting individual patients' data. In considering these challenges we focus on implementations that have proven feasible based on approaches in active use today. When widely available practices deviate from optimal practices, we highlight emerging developments meriting further evaluation and incorporation into clinical use. This document was created in collaboration with the OHBM Committee on Best Practices, incorporating community feedback. It aims to provide a framework for improved standardization of fMRI to enable much-needed evaluations of its ultimate goals; namely, minimization of invasive intraoperative testing and, ultimately, of new post-operative language deficits. Accordingly, the single strongest recommendation is for greater transparency and reporting of longitudinal outcomes in patients undergoing clinical fMRI.

Indexed as

brain mappingbrain / surgeryfMRIfunctional lateralityfunctional MRIlanguageneurosurgerysurgical planning

Identifiers

PMID42422553
PMCPMC13343883

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.