Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36451365›Full record

ReviewNeuroImage. Clinical2022

Advancing brain network models to reconcile functional neuroimaging and clinical research.

Xenia Kobeleva, Gaël Varoquaux, Alain Dagher, Mohit Adhikari, Christian Grefkes, Matthieu Gilson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT06387719 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Precursors of Binge Eating Disorder in a Clinical Sample of Adolescents With Obesity: Early MRI Markers of Brain Reward and Inhibition Processing Dysfunction

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorFundació Sant Joan de DéuRan2023 to 2026Enrolled102ConditionsBinge-Eating Disorder, Obesity, Eating Disorders, BEDArmsMagnetic resonance imaging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Revisiting the role of computational neuroimaging in the era of integrative neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024
    Review
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

6 authors.

Xenia KobelevaDepartment of Neurology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany; German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Gaël VaroquauxINRIA Saclay, Paris, France.
Alain DagherMontreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.
Mohit AdhikariBio-imaging Lab, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Christian GrefkesDepartment of Neurology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-1, INM-3), Research Centre Juelich, Juelich, Germany; Department of Neurology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Matthieu GilsonInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany; Center for Brain and Cognition, Department of Information and Telecommunication Technologies, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; Institut de Neurosciences des Systèmes, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France. Electronic address: matthieu.gilson@univ-amu.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BrainBrain MappingFunctional NeuroimagingHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeuroimagingBiomarkerDiagnosisfMRI dataModel interpretationNeuropathologiesWhole-brain model

Identifiers

PMID36451365
PMCPMC9723311

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.