Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42499226›Full record

SynthesisPsychophysiology2026

Brain Association Studies in 2024: A Systematic Review of Sample Sizes and Preregistrations.

Jan Wacker, Katharina Paul, Anna Scharfenecker

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

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

3 authors.

Jan WackerDepartment of Differential Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Institute of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8627-7294
Katharina PaulDepartment of Differential Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Institute of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9817-740X
Anna ScharfeneckerDepartment of Differential Psychology and Psychological Assessment, Institute of Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BrainElectroencephalographyHumansSample SizeEEGindividual differencesMRIpersonalitypreregistrationreplicabilityreviewsample sizestatistical power

Identifiers

PMID42499226
PMCPMC13401052

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.