SynthesisPsychophysiology2026
Brain Association Studies in 2024: A Systematic Review of Sample Sizes and Preregistrations.
Synthesis in Psychophysiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within the field of research aiming to link psychological variables to individual differences in brain structure and function, there is a widespread consensus that (1) samples sizes at least in the hundreds are necessary to detect the presumably modest effects of typically rho < 0.20 with sufficient statistical power and that (2) a large number of equally defensible options for data preprocessing and analysis exist that have a marked impact on the final results (i.e., an issue typically addressed via a detailed preregistration). However, among 515 relevant studies published in 2024 and identified in the current systematic review the median sample size was only 101 participants (80 in studies that presumably involved data collection rather than reanalysis of preexisting data) and only 5% featured a preregistration. Whereas 96% of the studies reported at least one significant relevant association, only 2.3% reported a significant preregistered association. This pattern suggests that many of the published associations are likely false positives and that significant changes in research practices are required. The current systematic review provides a blueprint for testing whether recent research in other fields faces similar problems.
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.