ReviewNeuroImage. Clinical2022
Advancing brain network models to reconcile functional neuroimaging and clinical research.
Review in NeuroImage. Clinical, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06387719 (Precursors of Binge Eating Disorder in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents With Obesity), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Precursors of Binge Eating Disorder in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents With Obesity: Early MRI Markers of Brain Reward and Inhibition Processing Dysfunction
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensitivity analysis enlightens effects of connectivity in a Neural Mass Model under Control-Target mode.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Evaluating machine learning pipelines for multimodal neuroimaging in small cohorts: an ALS case study.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2025Article
- Beyond Focal Lesions: Dynamical Network Effects of White Matter Hyperintensities.Human brain mapping · 2024Article
- Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) captures information on brain function beyond the anatomical alterations that are traditionally visually examined by neuroradiologists. However, the fMRI signals are complex in addition to being noisy, so fMRI still faces limitations for clinical applications. Here we review methods that have been proposed as potential solutions so far, namely statistical, biophysical and decoding models, with their strengths and weaknesses. We especially evaluate the ability of these models to directly predict clinical variables from their parameters (predictability) and to extract clinically relevant information regarding biological mechanisms and relevant features for classification and prediction (interpretability). We then provide guidelines for useful applications and pitfalls of such fMRI-based models in a clinical research context, looking beyond the current state of the art. In particular, we argue that the clinical relevance of fMRI calls for a new generation of models for fMRI data, which combine the strengths of both biophysical and decoding models. This leads to reliable and biologically meaningful model parameters, which thus fulfills the need for simultaneous interpretability and predictability. In our view, this synergy is fundamental for the discovery of new pharmacological and interventional targets, as well as the use of models as biomarkers in neurology and psychiatry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.