A hitchhiker's guide to working with large, open-source neuroimaging datasets.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
25
06
2020
accepted:
21
10
2020
pubmed:
9
12
2020
medline:
6
3
2021
entrez:
8
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Large datasets that enable researchers to perform investigations with unprecedented rigor are growing increasingly common in neuroimaging. Due to the simultaneous increasing popularity of open science, these state-of-the-art datasets are more accessible than ever to researchers around the world. While analysis of these samples has pushed the field forward, they pose a new set of challenges that might cause difficulties for novice users. Here we offer practical tips for working with large datasets from the end-user's perspective. We cover all aspects of the data lifecycle: from what to consider when downloading and storing the data to tips on how to become acquainted with a dataset one did not collect and what to share when communicating results. This manuscript serves as a practical guide one can use when working with large neuroimaging datasets, thus dissolving barriers to scientific discovery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33288916
doi: 10.1038/s41562-020-01005-4
pii: 10.1038/s41562-020-01005-4
pmc: PMC7992920
mid: NIHMS1676904
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
185-193Subventions
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R24 MH114805
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001863
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : T32 MH019961
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : P50 MH115716
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K00 MH122372
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH111424
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 GM007205
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R25 MH071584
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : TL1 TR001864
Pays : United States
Références
Van Essen, D. C. et al. The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: an overview. Neuroimage 80, 62–79 (2013).
pubmed: 3724347
pmcid: 3724347
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.041
Casey, B. J. et al. The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 43–54 (2018).
pubmed: 29567376
pmcid: 5999559
doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2018.03.001
Miller, K. L. et al. Multimodal population brain imaging in the UK Biobank prospective epidemiological study. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 1523–1536 (2016).
pubmed: 5086094
pmcid: 5086094
doi: 10.1038/nn.4393
Alexander, L. M. et al. An open resource for transdiagnostic research in pediatric mental health and learning disorders. Sci. Data 4, 170181 (2017).
pubmed: 29257126
pmcid: 5735921
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.181
Biswal, B. B. et al. Toward discovery science of human brain function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4734–4739 (2010).
pubmed: 20176931
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0911855107
Caspers, S. et al. Studying variability in human brain aging in a population-based German cohort-rationale and design of 1000BRAINS. Front. Aging Neurosci. 6, 149 (2014).
pubmed: 25071558
pmcid: 4094912
doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00149
HD-200 Consortium. The ADHD-200 Consortium: a model to advance the translational potential of neuroimaging in clinical neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 6, 62 (2012).
Das, S. et al. Cyberinfrastructure for open science at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Front. Neuroinform. 10, 53 (2017).
pubmed: 28111547
pmcid: 5216036
doi: 10.3389/fninf.2016.00053
Das, S., Zijdenbos, A. P., Harlap, J., Vins, D. & Evans, A. C. LORIS: a web-based data management system for multi-center studies. Front. Neuroinform. 5, 37 (2012).
pubmed: 22319489
pmcid: 3262165
doi: 10.3389/fninf.2011.00037
Di Martino, A. et al. Enhancing studies of the connectome in autism using the autism brain imaging data exchange II. Sci. Data 4, 170010 (2017).
pubmed: 28291247
pmcid: 5349246
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2017.10
Di Martino, A. et al. The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism. Mol. Psychiatry 19, 659–667 (2014).
pubmed: 23774715
doi: 10.1038/mp.2013.78
Gorgolewski, K. J. et al. NeuroVault.org: a repository for sharing unthresholded statistical maps, parcellations, and atlases of the human brain. Neuroimage 124, 1242–1244 (2016). Pt B.
pubmed: 25869863
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.016
Holmes, A. J. et al. Brain Genomics Superstruct Project initial data release with structural, functional, and behavioral measures. Sci. Data 2, 150031 (2015).
pubmed: 26175908
pmcid: 4493828
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2015.31
LaMontagne, P.J. et al. OASIS-3: longitudinal neuroimaging, clinical, and cognitive dataset for normal aging and Alzheimer disease. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.13.19014902 (2019).
Luo, X. Z., Kennedy, D. N. & Cohen, Z. Neuroimaging informatics tools and resources clearinghouse (NITRC) resource announcement. Neuroinformatics 7, 55–56 (2009).
pubmed: 19184562
doi: 10.1007/s12021-008-9036-8
Marek, K. et al. The Parkinson’s progression markers initiative (PPMI) - establishing a PD biomarker cohort. Ann. Clin. Transl. Neurol. 5, 1460–1477 (2018).
pubmed: 30564614
pmcid: 6292383
doi: 10.1002/acn3.644
Marek, K. et al. Parkinson Progression Marker Initiative. The Parkinson Progression Marker Initiative (PPMI). Prog. Neurobiol. 95, 629–635 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.09.005
Mennes, M., Biswal, B. B., Castellanos, F. X. & Milham, M. P. Making data sharing work: the FCP/INDI experience. Neuroimage 82, 683–691 (2013).
pubmed: 23123682
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.064
Mueller, S. G. et al. Ways toward an early diagnosis in Alzheimer’s disease: the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Alzheimers Dement. 1, 55–66 (2005).
pubmed: 17476317
pmcid: 1864941
doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2005.06.003
Nooner, K. B. et al. The NKI-Rockland Sample: a model for accelerating the pace of discovery science in psychiatry. Front. Neurosci. 6, 152 (2012).
pubmed: 3472598
pmcid: 3472598
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2012.00152
Poldrack, R. A. et al. Toward open sharing of task-based fMRI data: the OpenfMRI project. Front. Neuroinform. 7, 12 (2013).
pubmed: 23847528
pmcid: 3703526
doi: 10.3389/fninf.2013.00012
Poldrack, R. A. & Gorgolewski, K. J. OpenfMRI: Open sharing of task fMRI data. Neuroimage 144, 259–261 (2017). Pt B.
pubmed: 26048618
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.073
Satterthwaite, T. D. et al. Neuroimaging of the Philadelphia neurodevelopmental cohort. Neuroimage 86, 544–553 (2014).
pubmed: 23921101
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.064
Scott, A. et al. COINS: an innovative informatics and neuroimaging tool suite built for large heterogeneous datasets. Front. Neuroinform. 5, 33 (2011).
pubmed: 22275896
pmcid: 3250631
doi: 10.3389/fninf.2011.00033
Shafto, M. A. et al. The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) study protocol: a cross-sectional, lifespan, multidisciplinary examination of healthy cognitive ageing. BMC Neurol. 14, 204 (2014).
pubmed: 25412575
pmcid: 4219118
doi: 10.1186/s12883-014-0204-1
Snoek, L. et al. The Amsterdam Open MRI Collection, a set of multimodal MRI datasets for individual difference analyses. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.16.155317 (2020).
Taylor, J. R. et al. The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) data repository: structural and functional MRI, MEG, and cognitive data from a cross-sectional adult lifespan sample. Neuroimage 144, 262–269 (2017). Pt B.
pubmed: 26375206
pmcid: 5182075
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.09.018
Zuo, X. N. et al. An open science resource for establishing reliability and reproducibility in functional connectomics. Sci. Data 1, 140049 (2014).
pubmed: 25977800
pmcid: 4421932
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2014.49
Southard, E. E. On the topographical distribution of cortex lesions and anomalies in dementia praecox, with some account of their functional significance. Am. J. Insanity 71, 603–671 (1915).
Smith, S. M. & Nichols, T. E. Statistical challenges in “Big Data” human neuroimaging. Neuron 97, 263–268 (2018).
pubmed: 29346749
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.12.018
Noble, S., Scheinost, D. & Constable, R. T. Cluster failure or power failure? Evaluating sensitivity in cluster-level inference. Neuroimage 209, 116468 (2020).
pubmed: 31852625
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116468
Bzdok, D., Nichols, T. E. & Smith, S. M. Towards algorithmic analytics for large-scale datasets. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 296–306 (2019).
pubmed: 31701088
pmcid: 6837858
doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0069-5
Bzdok, D. & Yeo, B. T. T. Inference in the age of big data: Future perspectives on neuroscience. Neuroimage 155, 549–564 (2017).
pubmed: 28456584
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.04.061
Fan, J., Han, F. & Liu, H. Challenges of big data analysis. Natl. Sci. Rev. 1, 293–314 (2014).
pubmed: 25419469
pmcid: 4236847
doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwt032
Sandu, A. L., Paillère Martinot, M. L., Artiges, E. & Martinot, J. L. 1910s′ brains revisited. Cortical complexity in early 20th century patients with intellectual disability or with dementia praecox. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 130, 227–237 (2014).
pubmed: 24400850
doi: 10.1111/acps.12243
Brakewood, B. & Poldrack, R. A. The ethics of secondary data analysis: considering the application of Belmont principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data. Neuroimage 82, 671–676 (2013).
pubmed: 23466937
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.02.040
Meyer, M. N. Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 131–144 (2018).
doi: 10.1177/2515245917747656
White, T., Blok, E. & Calhoun, V.D. Data sharing and privacy issues in neuroimaging research: opportunities, obstacles, challenges, and monsters under the bed. Hum. Brain Map. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25120 (2020).
Nichols, T. E. et al. Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 299–303 (2017).
pubmed: 28230846
pmcid: 5685169
doi: 10.1038/nn.4500
Poline, J. B. et al. Data sharing in neuroimaging research. Front. Neuroinform. 6, 9 (2012).
pubmed: 22493576
pmcid: 3319918
doi: 10.3389/fninf.2012.00009
Barron, D.S. & Fox, P.T. BrainMap Database as a Resource for Computational Modeling. in Brain Mapping: An Encyclopedic Reference (ed. Toga, A. W.) 1, 675–683 (Elsevier, 2015).
Poldrack, R. A. & Gorgolewski, K. J. Making big data open: data sharing in neuroimaging. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 1510–1517 (2014).
pubmed: 25349916
doi: 10.1038/nn.3818
Hagler, D. J. Jr. et al. Image processing and analysis methods for the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Neuroimage 202, 116091 (2019).
pubmed: 31415884
pmcid: 6981278
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116091
Gordon, E. M. et al. Generation and evaluation of a cortical area parcellation from resting-state correlations. Cereb. Cortex 26, 288–303 (2016).
pubmed: 25316338
doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhu239
Botvinik-Nezer, R. et al. Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams. Nature 582, 84–88 (2020).
pubmed: 32483374
pmcid: 7771346
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2314-9
Ciric, R. et al. Benchmarking of participant-level confound regression strategies for the control of motion artifact in studies of functional connectivity. Neuroimage 154, 174–187 (2017).
pubmed: 28302591
pmcid: 5483393
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.020
Dadi, K. et al. Benchmarking functional connectome-based predictive models for resting-state fMRI. Neuroimage 192, 115–134 (2019).
pubmed: 30836146
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.02.062
Gorgolewski, K. J. et al. The brain imaging data structure, a format for organizing and describing outputs of neuroimaging experiments. Sci. Data 3, 160044 (2016).
pubmed: 27326542
pmcid: 4978148
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.44
Bennett, L. M. & Gadlin, H. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J. Investig. Med. 60, 768–775 (2012).
pubmed: 22525233
pmcid: 3652225
doi: 10.2310/JIM.0b013e318250871d
Lake, E. M. R. et al. The functional brain organization of an individual allows prediction of measures of social abilities transdiagnostically in autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biol. Psychiatry 86, 315–326 (2019).
pubmed: 31010580
pmcid: 7311928
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.02.019
Pomponio, R. et al. Harmonization of large MRI datasets for the analysis of brain imaging patterns throughout the lifespan. Neuroimage 208, 116450 (2020).
pubmed: 31821869
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116450
Sripada, C. et al. Prediction of neurocognition in youth from resting state fMRI. Mol. Psychiatry https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0481-6 (2019).
Fortin, J. P. et al. Harmonization of cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites. Neuroimage 167, 104–120 (2018).
pubmed: 29155184
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.024
Fortin, J. P. et al. Harmonization of multi-site diffusion tensor imaging data. Neuroimage 161, 149–170 (2017).
pubmed: 5736019
pmcid: 5736019
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.08.047
Yamashita, A. et al. Harmonization of resting-state functional MRI data across multiple imaging sites via the separation of site differences into sampling bias and measurement bias. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000042 (2019).
pubmed: 30998673
pmcid: 6472734
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000042
Yu, M. et al. Statistical harmonization corrects site effects in functional connectivity measurements from multi-site fMRI data. Hum. Brain Mapp. 39, 4213–4227 (2018).
pubmed: 29962049
pmcid: 6179920
doi: 10.1002/hbm.24241
Pinto, M. S. et al. Harmonization of brain diffusion MRI: concepts and methods. Front. Neurosci. 14, 396 (2020).
pubmed: 32435181
pmcid: 7218137
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00396
Orban, C., Kong, R., Li, J., Chee, M. W. L. & Yeo, B. T. T. Time of day is associated with paradoxical reductions in global signal fluctuation and functional connectivity. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000602 (2020).
pubmed: 32069275
pmcid: 7028250
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000602
Noble, S. et al. Multisite reliability of MR-based functional connectivity. Neuroimage 146, 959–970 (2017).
pubmed: 27746386
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.10.020
Marek, S. et al. Identifying reproducible individual differences in childhood functional brain networks: an ABCD study. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 40, 100706 (2019).
pubmed: 31614255
pmcid: 6927479
doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2019.100706
Alfaro-Almagro, F. et al. Confound modelling in UK Biobank brain imaging. Neuroimage 224, 117002 (2021).
pubmed: 32502668
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117002
Esteban, O. et al. MRIQC: Advancing the automatic prediction of image quality in MRI from unseen sites. PLoS One 12, e0184661 (2017).
pubmed: 28945803
pmcid: 5612458
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184661
Bissett, P.G., Hagen, M.P. & Poldrack, R.A. A cautionary note on stop-signal data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development [ABCD] study. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.08.084707 (2020).
Barch, D. M. et al. Function in the human connectome: task-fMRI and individual differences in behavior. Neuroimage 80, 169–189 (2013).
pubmed: 23684877
pmcid: 4011498
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.05.033
Gur, R. C. et al. Age group and sex differences in performance on a computerized neurocognitive battery in children age 8-21. Neuropsychology 26, 251–265 (2012).
pubmed: 22251308
pmcid: 3295891
doi: 10.1037/a0026712
Fischbach, G. D. & Lord, C. The Simons Simplex Collection: a resource for identification of autism genetic risk factors. Neuron 68, 192–195 (2010).
pubmed: 20955926
doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.10.006
Lord, C. et al. A multisite study of the clinical diagnosis of different autism spectrum disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 69, 306–313 (2012).
pubmed: 22065253
doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.148
Greene, A. S., Gao, S., Scheinost, D. & Constable, R. T. Task-induced brain state manipulation improves prediction of individual traits. Nat. Commun. 9, 2807 (2018).
pubmed: 30022026
pmcid: 6052101
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04920-3
Duncan, N. W. & Northoff, G. Overview of potential procedural and participant-related confounds for neuroimaging of the resting state. J. Psychiatry Neurosci. 38, 84–96 (2013).
pubmed: 22964258
pmcid: 3581596
doi: 10.1503/jpn.120059
Pervaiz, U., Vidaurre, D., Woolrich, M. W. & Smith, S. M. Optimising network modelling methods for fMRI. Neuroimage 211, 116604 (2020).
pubmed: 32062083
pmcid: 7086233
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116604
Rao, A., Monteiro, J. M. & Mourao-Miranda, J. Predictive modelling using neuroimaging data in the presence of confounds. Neuroimage 150, 23–49 (2017).
pubmed: 28143776
pmcid: 5391990
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.01.066
Snoek, L., Miletić, S. & Scholte, H. S. How to control for confounds in decoding analyses of neuroimaging data. Neuroimage 184, 741–760 (2019).
pubmed: 30268846
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.074
Milham, M. P. et al. Assessment of the impact of shared brain imaging data on the scientific literature. Nat. Commun. 9, 2818 (2018).
pubmed: 30026557
pmcid: 6053414
doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-04976-1
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
Lombardo, M. V., Lai, M. C. & Baron-Cohen, S. Big data approaches to decomposing heterogeneity across the autism spectrum. Mol. Psychiatry 24, 1435–1450 (2019).
pubmed: 30617272
pmcid: 6754748
doi: 10.1038/s41380-018-0321-0
Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013).
pubmed: 23571845
doi: 10.1038/nrn3475
Szucs, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biol. 15, e2000797 (2017).
pubmed: 28253258
pmcid: 5333800
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797
Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L. & Lazar, N. A. Moving to a world beyond “P < 0.05”. Am. Stat. 73 Suppl. 1, 1–19 (2019).
doi: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913
Kaplan, R. M., Chambers, D. A. & Glasgow, R. E. Big data and large sample size: a cautionary note on the potential for bias. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7, 342–346 (2014).
pubmed: 25043853
pmcid: 25043853
doi: 10.1111/cts.12178
Bzdok, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. Exploration, inference, and prediction in neuroscience and biomedicine. Trends Neurosci. 42, 251–262 (2019).
pubmed: 30808574
doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2019.02.001
Chen, G., Taylor, P. A. & Cox, R. W. Is the statistic value all we should care about in neuroimaging? Neuroimage 147, 952–959 (2017).
pubmed: 27729277
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.09.066
Szucs, D. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. When null hypothesis significance testing is unsuitable for research: a reassessment. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 11, 390 (2017).
pubmed: 28824397
pmcid: 5540883
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390
Wasserstein, R. L. & Lazar, N. A. The ASA’s statement on P-values: context, process, and purpose. Am. Stat. 70, 129–133 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108
Earp, B. D. The need for reporting negative results - a 90 year update. J. Clin. Transl. Res. 3, 344–347 (2017). Suppl 2.
pubmed: 30873480
pmcid: 6412619
Easterbrook, P. J., Berlin, J. A., Gopalan, R. & Matthews, D. R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337, 867–872 (1991).
pubmed: 1672966
doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y
Greenwald, A. G. Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 82, 1–20 (1975).
doi: 10.1037/h0076157
Heger, M. Editor’s inaugural issue foreword: perspectives on translational and clinical research. J. Clin. Transl. Res. 1, 1–5 (2015).
pubmed: 30873446
pmcid: 6410626
Pautasso, M. Worsening file-drawer problem in the abstracts of natural, medical and social science databases. Scientometrics 85, 193–202 (2010).
doi: 10.1007/s11192-010-0233-5
Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86, 638–641 (1979).
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Thompson, W. H., Wright, J., Bissett, P. G. & Poldrack, R. A. Dataset decay and the problem of sequential analyses on open datasets. eLife 9, e53498 (2020).
pubmed: 32425159
pmcid: 7237204
doi: 10.7554/eLife.53498
Cawley, G. C. & Talbot, N. L. C. On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11, 2079–2107 (2010).
Dietterich, T. Overfitting and undercomputing in machine learning. ACM Comp. Surv. 27, 326–327 (1995).
doi: 10.1145/212094.212114
Reunanen, J. Overfitting in making comparisons between variable selection methods. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 3, 1371–1382 (2003).
Thompson, P. M. et al. Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, EPIGEN Consortium, IMAGEN Consortium, Saguenay Youth Study (SYS) Group. The ENIGMA Consortium: large-scale collaborative analyses of neuroimaging and genetic data. Brain Imaging Behav. 8, 153–182 (2014).
pubmed: 24399358
pmcid: 4008818
doi: 10.1007/s11682-013-9269-5
Pierce, H. H., Dev, A., Statham, E. & Bierer, B. E. Credit data generators for data reuse. Nature 570, 30–32 (2019).
pubmed: 31164773
doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-01715-4
Weston, S. J., Ritchie, S. J., Rohrer, J. M. & Przybylski, A. K. Recommendations for increasing the transparency of analysis of preexisting data sets. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 214–227 (2019).
pubmed: 32190814
pmcid: 7079740
doi: 10.1177/2515245919848684
Milham, M. P. & Klein, A. Be the change you seek in science. BMC Biol. 17, 27 (2019).
pubmed: 30914050
pmcid: 6436210
doi: 10.1186/s12915-019-0647-3
Nowogrodzki, A. Eleven tips for working with large data sets. Nature 577, 439–440 (2020).
pubmed: 31932750
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00062-z
Van Essen, D. C. et al. The Brain Analysis Library of Spatial Maps and Atlases (BALSA) database. Neuroimage 144, 270–274 (2017). Pt B.
pubmed: 27074495
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.002
Niso, G. et al. OMEGA: the open MEG archive. Neuroimage 124, 1182–1187 (2016). Pt B.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.028