Variability in neuroimaging results has many causes and no solution. We need to be mindful of potential sources of discrepant results rather than dismiss them as human error.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Goldfarb, M. G. & Brown, D. R. Neuroimage 254, 119122 (2022).
Kopal, J., Uddin, L. Q. & Bzdok, D. Nat. Methods 20, 1122–1128 (2023).
Kang, D. W. et al. Sci. Rep. 10, 20905 (2020).
Kapoor, M. et al. BMJ Open 9, e026850 (2019).
Prasad, S. et al. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 105, 111–113 (2022).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Prasad, S. Variability in neuroimaging research is not always wrong. Nat Hum Behav 7, 2048–2049 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01767-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01767-7