ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)
From early to contemporary normative modeling: Mapping individual differences in neurophysiological signals.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Normative modeling has become a cornerstone of computational neuroscience, offering a powerful framework for detecting individual deviations from typical brain function. This review traces its trajectory in electrophysiology of the brain, from early studies in the 1970s, through a period of relative neglect, to its recent revival driven by machine learning advances and the availability of large-scale datasets. We provide a structured overview of this evolution, showing the shift from small, site-specific age-based models to increasingly harmonized approaches that integrate diverse biological and methodological innovations. Key studies are compared with respect to cohort composition, modeling strategies, and validation procedures, situating each within the broader arc of methodological progress. Despite this momentum, significant challenges remain, such as a lack of standardized practices, limited comparability across studies, and the need for richer integration of complex neurophysiological signals. Looking ahead, we argue that the future of electrophysiological normative modeling lies in scaling and unifying efforts, through international collaborations, standardized pipelines, and the incorporation of novel features. By coupling machine learning with both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, the field can progress from proof-of-concept demonstrations to precise, individualized brain mapping. Ultimately, such advances will provide the foundation for clinical applications, enabling cost-effective personalized treatment monitoring and a more refined understanding of individual differences in complex brain disorders.
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.