Meta all the way down: An overview of neuroimaging meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Meta-analyses are invaluable tools for navigating the rapidly expanding scientific literature. Given their high value, ensuring the quality of meta-analyses is paramount. We conducted a multifaceted overview, examining each step in a manual neuroimaging meta-analysis on a large scale. We used four novel datasets comprising over 14,000 papers, including fMRI meta-analyses, fMRI studies, studies included in meta-analyses, and studies associated with image data on NeuroVault. Regarding successes, two-thirds of meta-analyses stated that they followed PRISMA guidelines, and 65% included a flowchart describing their inclusion process. We point out several areas for improvement. Pre-registration was fairly rare (20%), and only half listed their exact search strategy. There could be a location bias in which papers are included, and many did not include enough studies to be robust against publication bias (68% of meta analyses have less than 30 studies included). We also offer ideas for future directions. As image based meta-analysis is the gold standard, we have indicated which topics have the most image data available. The potential redundancy of topics can be visualized in our paper, and we recommend future meta-analyses be in conversation with past ones by citing and discussing previous similar work. By addressing these findings, the neuroimaging community can collectively improve the field of neuroimaging meta-analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.078 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".