Cited by 242Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

Evaluating the consistency and specificity of neuroimaging data using meta-analysis

Open access
Wager, Tor D., Lindquist, Martin A., Nichols, Thomas E., Kober, Hedy, Van Snellenberg, Jared X.·2009·NeuroImage

Abstract

Making sense of a neuroimaging literature that is growing in scope and complexity will require increasingly sophisticated tools for synthesizing findings across studies. Meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies fills a unique niche in this process: It can be used to evaluate the consistency of findings across different laboratories and task variants, and it can be used to evaluate the specificity of findings in brain regions or networks to particular task types. This review discusses examples, implementation, and considerations when choosing meta-analytic techniques. It focuses on the multilevel kernel density analysis (MKDA) framework, which has been used in recent studies to evaluate consistency and specificity of regional activation, identify distributed functional networks from patterns of co-activation, and test hypotheses about functional cortical-subcortical pathways in healthy individuals and patients with mental disorders. Several tests of consistency and specificity are described.

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 · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.061

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • For working memory, the forward inference map revealed the most consistent associations in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior insula and dorsal medial frontal cortex (MFC).

    “For working memory, the forward inference map revealed the most consistent associations in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior insula and dorsal medial frontal cortex (MFC), replicating previous findings15,20.”

    From Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data. (2011) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Introduction’s discussion of functional specificity (page unavailable) reports consistent prefrontal activation when working memory is involved and consistent pre-supplementary motor activation across the task types examined. It does not identify DLPFC, anterior insula, and dorsal MFC together as the most consistent working-memory associations, so it supports only part of the claimed replication. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • True reverse inference requires knowledge of which brain regions and networks are selectively, and not just consistently, associated with particular cognitive states.

    “True reverse inference requires knowledge of which brain regions and networks are selectively, and not just consistently, associated with particular cognitive states15,17.”
  • Automated meta-analyses of working memory, emotion, and pain converge markedly with previously published meta- or mega-analytic maps, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

    “Comparison of automated meta-analyses of three broad psychological terms (‘working memory’, ‘emotion’, and ‘pain’) with previously published meta- or mega-analytic maps14-16 revealed a marked convergence between approaches both qualitatively (Fig. 2) and quantitatively (Supplementary Fig. 5).”

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: 3

  1. Agresti A Categorical Data Analysis 2002 John Wiley and Sons Hoboken, NJ 2nd ed.
  2. Buchsbaum BR Greer S Chang W-L Berman KF Meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting task. Hum. Brain Mapp 2005 25 35 45 15846821 PMC6871753
  3. Fox PT Huang AY Parsons LM Xiong JH Rainey L Lancaster JL Functional volumes modeling: scaling for group size in averaged images. Hum. Brain Mapp 1999 8 2–3 143 150 10524606 PMC6873332

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wager, T. D., Lindquist, M. A., Nichols, T. E., Kober, H., & Van Snellenberg, J. X.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
S210-S221
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141058981
Cited by
242
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 18
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
regional brain activation, functional brain networks, CO activation, mental illness
MeSH terms
Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Sensitivity and Specificity, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Positron-Emission Tomography

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