Article in NeuroImage, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.
Jacob DeRosaDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, United States; Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, United States. Electronic address: jacob.derosa@colorado.edu.
Naomi P FriedmanDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, United States; Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado Boulder, United States.
Vince CalhounTri-institutional Center for Translational Research in Neuroimaging and Data Science (TReNDS), Georgia State University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, United States.
Marie T BanichDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, United States; Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado Boulder, United States.
Funding
ABCD-USA Consortium: Coordinating CenterU24DA041147 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SANDRA A BROWN, TERRY L. JERNIGAN · 2015 to 2026
$52.0M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Data Analysis, Informatics and Resource CenterU24DA041123 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ANDERS M DALE · 2015 to 2026
$51.5M
Adolescent Substance Use Initiation: Disentangling neurocognitive risks from consequences using longitudinal and genetically-informed methodsU01DA041120 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI Monica Luciana, Sylia Wilson · 2015 to 2026
$34.5M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041089 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Joanna Jacobus, Susan F. Tapert · 2015 to 2026
$31.7M
Prospective Research Studies of Maturation (PRISM)- Research ProjectU01DA041134 · NIDA · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI ERIN MCGLADE, PERRY FRANKLIN RENSHAW · 2015 to 2026
$29.2M
ABCD-USA CONSORTIUM: RESEARCH PROJECTU01DA041048 · NIDA · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES · PI Megan Marie Herting, ELIZABETH R SOWELL · 2015 to 2026
$28.7M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041106 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Mary M Heitzeg, Chandra Sekhar Sripada · 2015 to 2026
$24.9M
FIU-ABCD: Pathways and Mechanisms to Addiction in the Latino Youth of South FloridaU01DA041156 · NIDA · FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY · PI Raul Gonzalez, Angela R Laird · 2015 to 2026
$22.8M
ABCD-USA Consortium: Research ProjectU01DA041148 · NIDA · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI Damien A Fair, Rebekah S Huber · 2015 to 2026
$22.3M
ABCD-USA: NYC Research ProjectU01DA041174 · NIDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Arielle Ryan Baskin-Sommers, Betty J Casey · 2015 to 2026
$19.7M
Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Prospective Research in Studies of Maturation (PRISM) ConsortiumU01DA041117 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE · PI LINDA CHANG, THOMAS M ERNST · 2015 to 2026
$19.5M
15/21 ABCD-USA Consortium: Research Project Site at LIBRU01DA050989 · NIDA · LAUREATE INSTITUTE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH · PI ROBIN L AUPPERLE, MARTIN P. PAULUS · 2020 to 2026
The current study demonstrates that an individual's resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) is a dependable biomarker for identifying differential patterns of cognitive and emotional functioning during late childhood. Using baseline RSFC data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, which includes children aged 9-11, we identified four distinct RSFC subtypes. We introduce an integrated methodological pipeline for testing the reliability and importance of these subtypes. In the Identification phase, Leiden Community Detection defined RSFC subtypes, with their reproducibility confirmed through a split-sample technique in the Validation stage. The Evaluation phase showed that distinct cognitive and mental health profiles are associated with each subtype, with the Predictive phase indicating that subtypes better predict various cognitive and mental health characteristics than individual RSFC connections. The Replication stage employed bootstrapping and down-sampling methods to substantiate the reproducibility of these subtypes further. This work allows future explorations of developmental trajectories of these RSFC subtypes.
Indexed as
BrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdolescentChildChild DevelopmentCognitionConnectomeFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsAdolescent brain cognitive development studyBiomarkerMachine learningResting-state functional connectivitySubtyping
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.