Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42787472›Full record

ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2026

Getting blood from a stone: Improving brain-behavior inferences without brain data.

David Halpern, Todd Gureckis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 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

2 authors.

David HalpernDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7490-5692
Todd GureckisDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, the cognitive neuroscience literature has come under criticism for containing many low-powered studies, limiting the ability to make reliable statistical inferences. Typically, the suggestion for increasing power is to collect more data with neural signals. However, many studies in cognitive neuroscience use parameters estimated from behavioral data in order to make inferences about neural signals (such as fMRI BOLD signal). In this paper, we explore how cognitive neuroscientists can learn more about their neuroimaging signal by collecting data on

Indexed as

BehaviorBrainBrain MappingCognitionCognitive NeuroscienceComputer SimulationHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingbrain–behavior associationshierarchical modelingmissing data

Identifiers

PMID42787472
PMCPMC13602129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.