What are the standards for the reporting methods and results of fMRI studies, and how have they evolved over the years? To answer this question we reviewed 160 papers published between 2004 and 2019. Reporting styles for methods and results of fMRI studies can differ greatly between published studies. However, adequate reporting is essential for the comprehension, replication and reuse of the study (for instance in a meta-analysis). To aid authors in reporting the methods and results of their task-based fMRI study the COBIDAS report was published in 2016, which provides researchers with clear guidelines on how to report the design, acquisition, preprocessing, statistical analysis and results (including data sharing) of fMRI studies (Nichols et al. in Best Practices in Data Analysis and Sharing in Neuroimaging using fMRI, 2016). In the past reviews have been published that evaluate how fMRI methods are reported based on the 2008 guidelines, but they did not focus on how task based fMRI results are reported. This review updates reporting practices of fMRI methods, and adds an extra focus on how fMRI results are reported. We discuss reporting practices about the design stage, specific participant characteristics, scanner characteristics, data processing methods, data analysis methods and reported results.

Erratum in Neuroinformatics. 2022 Oct 13;:

Recognizing that diverse morphologies of neurons are reminiscent of structures of branched polymers, we put forward a principled and systematic way of classifying neurons that employs the ideas of polymer physics. In particular, we use 3D coordinates of individual neurons, which are accessible in recent neuron reconstruction datasets from electron microscope images. We numerically calculate the form factor, F(q), a Fourier transform of the distance distribution of particles comprising an object of interest, which is routinely measured in scattering experiments to quantitatively characterize the structure of materials. For a polymer-like object consisting of n monomers spanning over a length scale of r, F(q) scales with the wavenumber [Formula: see text] as [Formula: see text] at an intermediate range of q, where [Formula: see text] is the fractal dimension or the inverse scaling exponent ([Formula: see text]) characterizing the geometrical feature ([Formula: see text]) of the object. F(q) can be used to describe a neuron morphology in terms of its size ([Formula: see text]) and the extent of branching quantified by [Formula: see text]. By defining the distance between F(q)s as a measure of similarity between two neuronal morphologies, we tackle the neuron classification problem. In comparison with other existing classification methods for neuronal morphologies, our F(q)-based classification rests solely on 3D coordinates of neurons with no prior knowledge of morphological features. When applied to publicly available neuron datasets from three different organisms, our method not only complements other methods but also offers a physical picture of how the dendritic and axonal branches of an individual neuron fill the space of dense neural networks inside the brain.