Cited by 1,056Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces

Building better biomarkers: brain models in translational neuroimaging

Open access
Woo, Choong-Wan, Chang, Luke J, Lindquist, Martin A, Wager, Tor D·2017·Nature Neuroscience

Abstract

Despite its great promise, neuroimaging has yet to substantially impact clinical practice and public health. However, a developing synergy between emerging analysis techniques and data-sharing initiatives has the potential to transform the role of neuroimaging in clinical applications. We review the state of translational neuroimaging and outline an approach to developing brain signatures that can be shared, tested in multiple contexts and applied in clinical settings. The approach rests on three pillars: (i) the use of multivariate pattern-recognition techniques to develop brain signatures for clinical outcomes and relevant mental processes; (ii) assessment and optimization of their diagnostic value; and (iii) a program of broad exploration followed by increasingly rigorous assessment of generalizability across samples, research contexts and populations. Increasingly sophisticated models based on these principles will help to overcome some of the obstacles on the road from basic neuroscience to better health and will ultimately serve both basic and applied goals.

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 · 10.1038/nn.4478

Cites

153 of 153 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?

  • The search for imaging biomarkers for brain disorders is fraught with difficulty related to the complexity and distribution of cognitive processing, generalization from heterogeneous clinical samples, and small effect sizes with limited clinical utility.

    “The search for imaging biomarkers for brain disorders is fraught with difficulty related to the complexity and distribution of cognitive processing in the brain, the generalization of findings from heterogeneous clinical samples, and small effect sizes that have limited clinical utility194, 195.”

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: 2

  1. [35]Mohri M Rostamizadeh A Talwalkar A Foundations of Machine Learning MIT Press 2012
  2. [74]Olivetti E Sona D Veeramachaneni S Gaussian process regression and recurrent neural networks for fmri image classification Proc. 12th Meeting Org. for Human Brain Mapping Florence, Italy 2006

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woo, C.-W., Chang, L. J., Lindquist, M. A., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2017-02-23
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
365-377
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2590328111
Cited by
1,056
References
153
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 125 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 110 · 2021: 140 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 108 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 36
FWCI
10.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH076136)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA035484)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › EEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Keywords
translational neuroimaging, biomarkers, brain signatures, multivariate pattern classification, neuroimaging, generalizability, diagnostic value, data sharing, clinical translation, brain models
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Biomarkers, Pattern Recognition, Physiological, 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