ReviewNature methods2026
Go figure: transparency in neuroscience images preserves context and clarifies interpretation.
Review in Nature methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Serotonergic psychedelics induce distinct patterns of metabolic activity and covariance within biologically informed rat brain networks.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Rethinking the centrality of brain areas in understanding functional organization.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
- Network Localization of Functional Brain Changes Associated With Ketamine's Therapeutic Effects in Depression.Biological psychiatry · 2026Article
- Energetic implications of fMRI-based nodal complex network metrics: a complex picture unfolds across diverse brain states.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Feasibility of Integrating Real-Time fMRI Neurofeedback with rTMS: Study Design, Preliminary Results, and Technical Challenges.Aperture neuro · 2026Article
- Binocular cues to 3D face structure increase activation in depth-selective visual cortex with negligible effects in face-selective areas.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- What are we missing? What are we assuming? The need to foster feature discovery tools to improve statistical models.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visualizations are vital for communicating scientific results. Historically, brain images in neuroscience figures have only depicted regions that surpass a given statistical threshold. This practice substantially biases interpretation of the results and subsequent meta-analyses, particularly toward non-reproducibility. We advocate for 'transparent thresholding' that not only highlights statistically significant regions but also includes subthreshold locations, retaining key experimental context. This balances the dual needs of distilling modeling results and enabling informed interpretations of neuroimaging results. Transparent thresholding removes ambiguity, decreases hypersensitivity to nonphysiological features, helps catch potential artifacts, improves cross-study comparisons, reduces non-reproducibility biases and clarifies interpretations. We address considerations raised by researchers in the field and highlight the many software packages implementing transparent thresholding, several of which were added or streamlined as part of this work. We hope that by showing how transparent thresholding can meaningfully improve the interpretation (and reproducibility) of neuroimaging findings, we will encourage more researchers to adopt this method.
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.