» Articles » PMID: 30195054

The Landscape of NeuroImage-ing Research

Overview
Journal Neuroimage
Specialty Radiology
Date 2018 Sep 9
PMID 30195054
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

As the field of neuroimaging grows, it can be difficult for scientists within the field to gain and maintain a detailed understanding of its ever-changing landscape. While collaboration and citation networks highlight important contributions within the field, the roles of and relations among specific areas of study can remain quite opaque. Here, we apply techniques from network science to map the landscape of neuroimaging research documented in the journal NeuroImage over the past decade. We create a network in which nodes represent research topics, and edges give the degree to which these topics tend to be covered in tandem. The network displays small-world architecture, with communities characterized by common imaging modalities and medical applications, and with hubs that integrate these distinct subfields. Using node-level analysis, we quantify the structural roles of individual topics within the neuroimaging landscape, and find high levels of clustering within the structural MRI subfield as well as increasing participation among topics related to psychiatry. The overall prevalence of a topic is unrelated to the prevalence of its neighbors, but the degree to which a topic becomes more or less popular over time is strongly related to changes in the prevalence of its neighbors. Finally, we incorporate data from PNAS to investigate whether it serves as a trend-setter for topics' use within NeuroImage. We find that popularity trends are correlated across the two journals, and that changes in popularity tend to occur earlier within PNAS among growing topics. Broadly, this work presents a cohesive model for understanding the emergent relationships and dynamics of research topics within NeuroImage.

Citing Articles

Science maps for exploration, navigation, and reflection-A graphic approach to strategic thinking.

Skov F PLoS One. 2021; 16(12):e0262081.

PMID: 34972185 PMC: 8719663. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262081.


Architecture and evolution of semantic networks in mathematics texts.

Christianson N, Blevins A, Bassett D Proc Math Phys Eng Sci. 2020; 476(2239):20190741.

PMID: 32821238 PMC: 7426037. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2019.0741.


Predicting research trends with semantic and neural networks with an application in quantum physics.

Krenn M, Zeilinger A Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(4):1910-1916.

PMID: 31937664 PMC: 6994972. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1914370116.


A decade of test-retest reliability of functional connectivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Noble S, Scheinost D, Constable R Neuroimage. 2019; 203:116157.

PMID: 31494250 PMC: 6907736. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116157.


The emergent integrated network structure of scientific research.

Dworkin J, Shinohara R, Bassett D PLoS One. 2019; 14(4):e0216146.

PMID: 31039179 PMC: 6490937. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216146.

References
1.
Muldoon S, Bridgeford E, Bassett D . Small-World Propensity and Weighted Brain Networks. Sci Rep. 2016; 6:22057. PMC: 4766852. DOI: 10.1038/srep22057. View

2.
Watts D, Strogatz S . Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks. Nature. 1998; 393(6684):440-2. DOI: 10.1038/30918. View

3.
Christakis N, Fowler J . The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(4):370-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa066082. View

4.
Fortunato S, Bergstrom C, Borner K, Evans J, Helbing D, Milojevic S . Science of science. Science. 2018; 359(6379). PMC: 5949209. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao0185. View

5.
Contandriopoulos D, Duhoux A, Larouche C, Perroux M . The Impact of a Researcher's Structural Position on Scientific Performance: An Empirical Analysis. PLoS One. 2016; 11(8):e0161281. PMC: 5006965. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161281. View