4.7 Article

Large, open datasets for human connectomics research: Considerations for reproducible and responsible data use

Journal

NEUROIMAGE
Volume 244, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118579

Keywords

Connectomics; Large open datasets; Neuroimaging data sharing; Reproducible analytics

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01DA041353, U01-DA041156]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review explores the evolution of data sharing in magnetic resonance imaging and the challenges and progress in reproducible data analyses. It emphasizes the ethical conduct relevant to analyses of large, open datasets and the responsibility of researchers to prevent further stigmatization of historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups.
Large, open datasets have emerged as important resources in the field of human connectomics. In this review, the evolution of data sharing involving magnetic resonance imaging is described. A summary of the challenges and progress in conducting reproducible data analyses is provided, including description of recent progress made in the development of community guidelines and recommendations, software and data management tools, and initiatives to enhance training and education. Finally, this review concludes with a discussion of ethical conduct relevant to analyses of large, open datasets and a researcher's responsibility to prevent further stigmatization of historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups. Moving forward, future work should include an enhanced emphasis on the social determinants of health, which may further contextualize findings among diverse population-based samples. Leveraging the progress to date and guided by interdisciplinary collaborations, the future of connectomics promises to be an impressive era of innovative research, yielding a more inclusive understanding of brain structure and function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available