Cited by 53Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesAdvanced MRI Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

A resting state fMRI analysis pipeline for pooling inference across diverse cohorts: an ENIGMA rs-fMRI protocol

Open access
Adhikari, Bhim M., Jahanshad, Neda, Shukla, Dinesh, Turner, Jessica, Grotegerd, Dominik, Dannlowski, Udo, Kugel, Harald, Engelen, Jennifer +25 more·2019·Brain Imaging and Behavior

Abstract

Large-scale consortium efforts such as Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) and other collaborative efforts show that combining statistical data from multiple independent studies can boost statistical power and achieve more accurate estimates of effect sizes, contributing to more reliable and reproducible research. A meta- analysis would pool effects from studies conducted in a similar manner, yet to date, no such harmonized protocol exists for resting state fMRI (rsfMRI) data. Here, we propose an initial pipeline for multi-site rsfMRI analysis to allow research groups around the world to analyze scans in a harmonized way, and to perform coordinated statistical tests. The challenge lies in the fact that resting state fMRI measurements collected by researchers over the last decade vary widely, with variable quality and differing spatial or temporal signal-to-noise ratio (tSNR). An effective harmonization must provide optimal measures for all quality data. Here we used rsfMRI data from twenty-two independent studies with approximately fifty corresponding T1-weighted and rsfMRI datasets each, to (A) review and aggregate the state of existing rsfMRI data, (B) demonstrate utility of principal component analysis (PCA)-based denoising and (C) develop a deformable ENIGMA EPI template based on the representative anatomy that incorporates spatial distortion patterns from various protocols and populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11682-018-9941-x

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Woods R (1996). Correlation of Brain Structure and Function In “ Brain Mapping: The Methods” (Toga A, Mazziotta J, Eds.) pp. 313– 342: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adhikari, B. M., Jahanshad, N., Shukla, D., Turner, J., Grotegerd, D., Dannlowski, U., Kugel, H., Engelen, J., Dietsche, B., Krug, A., Kircher, T., Fieremans, E., Veraart, J., Novikov, D. S., Boedhoe, P. S. W., van der Werf, Y. D., van den Heuvel, O. A., Ipser, J., Uhlmann, A., Stein, D. J., Dickie, E., Voineskos, A. N., Malhotra, A. K., Pizzagalli, F., Calhoun, V. D., Waller, L., Veer, I. M., Walter, H., Buchanan, R. W., Glahn, D. C., Hong, L. E., Thompson, P. M., & Kochunov, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • University of Münster (DE)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • New York University (US)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • Zucker Hillside Hospital (US)
  • Mind Research Network (US)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Adhikari, Bhim M.
Venue
Brain Imaging and Behavior
Published
2018-09-06
Volume
13
Issue
5
Pages
1453-1467
ISSN
  • 1931-7557 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-7565
OpenAlex
W2891144030
Cited by
53
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Brain Imaging and Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (U54EB020403, U01MH108148, 2R01EB015611, R01MH112180, R01DA027680, R01MH085646)
  • German Research Foundation (FOR2107:KI 588/15-1, FOR2107: DA 1151/5-1, FOR2017:KO 4291/4-1 and KR 3822/5-1)
  • Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation - Flanders (12S1615N)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced MRI Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
resting-state fMRI, mystery, meta-analysis, spatial distortion correction, signal-to-noise ratio, T1-weighted imaging, neuroimaging genetics, data analysis pipeline
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Artifacts, Young Adult, Signal-To-Noise Ratio, Functional Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review