Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis in human neuroimaging: computational modeling of large-scale databases

Fox PT, Lancaster JL, Laird AR, Eickhoff SB

Annual review of neuroscience, 2014

148 citations

Abstract

Spatial normalization--applying standardized coordinates as anatomical addresses within a reference space--was introduced to human neuroimaging research nearly 30 years ago. Over these three decades, an impressive series of methodological advances have adopted, extended, and popularized this standard. Collectively, this work has generated a methodologically coherent literature of unprecedented rigor, size, and scope. Large-scale online databases have compiled these observations and their associated meta-data, stimulating the development of meta-analytic methods to exploit this expanding corpus. Coordinate-based meta-analytic methods have emerged and evolved in rigor and utility. Early methods computed cross-study consensus, in a manner roughly comparable to traditional (nonimaging) meta-analysis. Recent advances now compute coactivation-based connectivity, connectivity-based functional parcellation, and complex network models powered from data sets representing tens of thousands of subjects. Meta-analyses of human neuroimaging data in large-scale databases now stand at the forefront of computational neurobiology.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free