{"doi":"10.1016/j.cortex.2022.11.001","title":"A quantified comparison of cortical atlases on the basis of trait morphometricity","abstract":"BACKGROUND: Many different brain atlases exist that subdivide the human cortex into dozens or hundreds of regions-of-interest (ROIs). Inconsistency across studies using one or another cortical atlas may contribute to the replication crisis across the neurosciences. METHODS: Here, we provide a quantitative comparison between seven popular cortical atlases (Yeo, Desikan-Killiany, Destrieux, Jülich-Brain, Gordon, Glasser, Schaefer) and vertex-wise measures (thickness, surface area, and volume), to determine which parcellation retains the most information in the analysis of behavioural traits (incl. age, sex, body mass index, and cognitive ability) in the UK Biobank sample (N∼40,000). We use linear mixed models to compare whole-brain morphometricity; the proportion of trait variance accounted for when using a given atlas. RESULTS: Commonly-used atlases resulted in a considerable loss of information compared to vertex-wise representations of cortical structure. Morphometricity increased linearly as a function of the log-number of ROIs included in an atlas, indicating atlas-based analyses miss many true associations and yield limited prediction accuracy. Likelihood ratio tests revealed that low-dimensional atlases accounted for unique trait variance rather than variance common between atlases, suggesting that previous studies likely returned atlas-specific findings. Finally, we found that the commonly-used atlases yielded brain-behaviour associations on par with those obtained with random parcellations, where specific region boundaries were randomly generated. DISCUSSION: Our findings motivate future structural neuroimaging studies to favour vertex-wise cortical representations over coarser atlases, or to consider repeating analyses across multiple atlases, should the use of low-dimensional atlases be necessary. The insights uncovered here imply that cortical atlas choices likely contribute to the lack of reproducibility in ROI-based studies.","journal":"Cortex","year":2022,"id":241388,"datarank":1.1172329898496547,"base_score":3.7612001156935624,"endowment":3.7612001156935624,"self_citation_contribution":0.5641800173540344,"citation_network_contribution":0.5530529724956204,"self_endowment_contribution":0.5641800173540344,"citer_contribution":0.5530529724956204,"corpus_percentile":81.74363734818597,"corpus_rank":2361,"citation_count":42,"citer_count":36,"citers_with_citation_signal":21,"citers_with_endowment":21,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":true,"is_dataset_confidence":0.6423,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":true,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":"2022-01-01","fair_score":6.25,"fair_percentile":25.068786303882604,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":54146,"name":"James H. Cole","orcid":"0000-0003-1908-5588","position":1,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":5375,"name":"Baptiste Couvy‐Duchesne","orcid":"0000-0002-0719-9302","position":2,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":263842,"name":"Stuart J. Ritchie","orcid":"0000-0001-8512-7825","position":3,"is_corresponding":false},{"id":572363,"name":"Anna E. Fürtjes","orcid":"0000-0001-6590-4957","position":0,"is_corresponding":true}],"reference_count":50,"raw_metadata":null,"created_at":"2026-07-19T00:22:56.227656Z","pmid":"36516597","pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":0.0,"fair_a":0.0,"fair_i":20.0,"fair_r":20.8333,"fair_zscore":-1.1162,"fair_rationale":{"fair_score":6.25,"has_llm":true,"taxonomy_version":"fair_taxonomy_v5","dimensions":{"F":{"name":"Findable","score":0.0,"criteria":[{"key":"f_dataset_pid","label":"Persistent identifier for the data","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper gives a URL (https://osf.io/dkw9t) for materials and data, but this is not a persistent identifier scheme (no DOI, Handle, ARK, or repository accession). The URL is a class-2 artefact. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]","anchors":["RDA-F1-01D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a persistent identifier' (priorit","RDA-F1-02D — FAIR Data Maturity Model: 'Data is identified by a globally unique identifier'","FsF-F1-02D — F-UJI/FAIRsFAIR: 'Data is assigned a persistent identifier'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"f_repository_named","label":"Named repository","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper states that the authors do not have permission to share data, so no repository is named as the holder of the study's own data. The OSF link is for materials, not data.","anchors":["RDA-F4-01M — FAIR Data Maturity Model: metadata is offered so it can be harvested and indexed (","NIH DMS Policy Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — name the repository where data will be archived","NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Long-Term Sustainability', 'Reten"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"f_data_availability_statement","label":"Data-availability statement","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The data availability statement declares that the data cannot be shared ('The authors do not have permission to share data'), which is Colavizza category 0 (no route), so the verdict is no.","anchors":["Colavizza, Hrynaszkiewicz, Staden, Whitaker & McGillivray (2020), 'The citation advantage of li","Springer Nature research data policy — Data Availability Statements: standard statement templat","RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"f_discovery_metadata","label":"Description of the dataset as an object","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not provide an itemized inventory of the dataset (files, variables, records) that it generated; it only describes the UK Biobank source data and methods.","anchors":["RDA-F2-01M — 'Rich metadata is provided to allow discovery' (priority Essential)","FsF-F2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes descriptive core elements to support data findability'","FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data'"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"f_dataset_cited","label":"Dataset formally cited","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper's own dataset (morphometricity estimates, code) is not cited in the reference list; the UK Biobank resource is cited but that is not the study's own data.","anchors":["FORCE11 Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles (2014) — data should be cited as a first-","RDA-F3-01M — metadata clearly and explicitly includes the identifier of the data it describes","FsF-F3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes the identifier of the data it describes'"],"scored":true,"signal":null}]},"A":{"name":"Accessible","score":0.0,"criteria":[{"key":"a_data_openly_accessible","label":"Access route free of preconditions","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The data availability statement explicitly says 'The authors do not have permission to share data', indicating that the data are not openly accessible and no followable route is provided.","anchors":["RDA-A1.1-01D — 'Data is accessible through a free access protocol'","FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data'","NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Free and Easy Access'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"a_access_conditions_stated","label":"Access level labelled","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not provide any access-level label for the data; it only states that the data cannot be shared, which implies no access conditions are described.","anchors":["FsF-A1-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata contains access level and access conditions of the data'","RDA-A1-01M — metadata contains information to enable the user to get access to the data","COAR Controlled Vocabularies — Access Rights v1.0 (open / embargoed / restricted / metadata-onl"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"a_controlled_access_for_sensitive","label":"Gatekeeper for sensitive data","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper states that the authors do not have permission to share data, but no institutional gatekeeper is named for the study's own data. The UK Biobank data used is controlled-access, but the study's own derived data are not shared.","anchors":["NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy (NOT-OD-14-124) — controlled-access via a Data Access Committee","RDA-A1.2-01D — 'Data is accessible through an access protocol that supports authentication and ","NIH DMS Policy Element 5 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Access, Distribution, or Reuse Considerations (conse"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"a_timeline_retention","label":"Availability timing & retention","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper makes no statement about when the data are available or how long they persist; the data are not shared.","anchors":["NIH DMS Plan Element 4 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Data Preservation, Access, and Associated Timelines","NSTC Desirable Characteristics (2022), Organizational Infrastructure: 'Retention Policy'","RDA-A2-01M — 'Metadata is guaranteed to remain available after data is no longer available'"],"scored":false,"signal":null}]},"I":{"name":"Interoperable","score":20.0,"criteria":[{"key":"i_open_nonproprietary_format","label":"Open file format","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not name any file format for the released data; the code is on GitHub but no format token for the data is given.","anchors":["FsF-R1.3-02D — F-UJI: 'Data is available in a file format recommended by the target research co","RDA-R1.3-02D — data is expressed in a machine-understandable community standard","RDA-I1-01D — data uses a knowledge representation expressed in a standardised format"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"i_community_standard_vocabulary","label":"Community standard / vocabulary","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No community-standard metadata schema, ontology, or checklist is applied to the study's own data; the paper uses standard atlases but does not apply them as a metadata standard to the released data.","anchors":["RDA-R1.3-01M — 'Metadata complies with a community standard' (priority Essential)","RDA-R1.3-01D — 'Data complies with a community standard'","RDA-I2-01M — '(Meta)data use vocabularies that follow FAIR principles'"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"i_qualified_references","label":"Identifiers for the resources the data depend on","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":1.0,"verdict":"yes","evidence":"AEF is the lead analysist on this project and has been granted access to the UKB data through UKB application 40933","grounded":true,"rationale":"The paper provides an identifier for the UK Biobank data it uses, which is a resource other than the paper's own dataset. [majority verdict 'yes' (3/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["RDA-I3-01M — '(meta)data include references to other (meta)data'","RDA-I3-03M — 'metadata includes qualified references to other metadata'","FsF-I3-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes links between the data and its related entities'"],"scored":false,"signal":null}]},"R":{"name":"Reusable","score":20.83,"criteria":[{"key":"r_reuse_license","label":"Reuse licence","kind":"llm","weight":2.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper is under a CC BY license, but that applies to the article, not the data. No license or terms are named for the data itself.","anchors":["RDA-R1.1-01M — 'Metadata includes information about the licence under which the data can be reu","RDA-R1.1-02M — 'Metadata refers to a standard reuse licence'","RDA-R1.1-03M — 'Metadata refers to a machine-understandable reuse licence'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"r_provenance_methods","label":"Provenance of the data","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper names specific software and versions used to produce the data, such as 'FreeSurfer 6.0' and 'OSCA software', providing provenance information. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (2/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["RDA-R1.2-01M — 'Metadata includes provenance information according to community- specific standa","FsF-R1.2-01M — F-UJI: 'Metadata includes provenance information about data creation or generati","W3C PROV-O (W3C Recommendation, 2013) — the entity/activity/agent model of provenance"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"r_documentation_codebook","label":"Documentation / codebook","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"No documentation object (README, codebook, data dictionary) is mentioned as accompanying the data; the data are not shared.","anchors":["RDA-R1-01M — '(Meta)data are richly described with a plurality of accurate and relevant attribu","FsF-R1-01MD — F-UJI: 'Metadata specifies the content of the data'","NIH DMS Policy Element 3 (NOT-OD-21-014) — Standards (documentation and metadata to accompany t"],"scored":false,"signal":null},{"key":"r_versioning","label":"Snapshot identified","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.0,"verdict":"no","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper does not provide a version token or date for the study's own data; the data are not released as a versioned resource.","anchors":["DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — the 'Version' property","RDA-R1.2-01M — provenance information (which version was used is provenance)","NSTC Desirable Characteristics of Data Repositories (2022) — 'Provenance', 'Retention Policy'"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"x_code_availability","label":"Analysis code available","kind":"llm","weight":1.0,"fraction":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper provides a GitHub URL for the analysis code (https://annafurtjes.github.io/Comparing_atlases/), which is a machine-resolvable locator. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["NIH DMS Policy Element 2 (NOT-OD-21-014) — 'Related Tools, Software and/or Code'","FAIR4RS Principles v1.0 (Chue Hong et al., 2022; RDA/FORCE11/ReSA) — FAIR Principles for Resear","FORCE11 Software Citation Principles (Smith, Katz & Niemeyer, 2016, PeerJ CS 2:e86)"],"scored":true,"signal":null},{"key":"x_funding_attribution","label":"Funder and award number","kind":"llm","weight":0.5,"fraction":0.5,"verdict":"partial","evidence":null,"grounded":false,"rationale":"The paper lists specific grant numbers including R01AG054628, MR/R024790/1, and App1161356, providing award-level funding attribution. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]","anchors":["DataCite Metadata Schema 4.6 — 'FundingReference' property (funderName, funderIdentifier, award","Crossref Funder Registry — canonical funder identifiers for funding metadata","RDA-F2-01M — rich metadata provided to allow discovery (funding is part of the descriptive reco"],"scored":true,"signal":null}]}},"actions":[{"key":"f_dataset_pid","dimension":"F","label":"Persistent identifier for the data","action":"Mint or cite a persistent identifier for the dataset — a repository DOI or an accession from a registered repository — and print it in the paper. A bare URL is not persistent: it is the single most common cause of a dead data link five years after publication. For neuroimaging data, deposit in OpenNeuro or NeuroVault.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper gives a URL (https://osf.io/dkw9t) for materials and data, but this is not a persistent identifier scheme (no DOI, Handle, ARK, or repository accession). The URL is a class-2 artefact. [downgraded to 'no' — no verifiable quote from the paper]","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"f_repository_named","dimension":"F","label":"Named repository","action":"Deposit the data in a repository registered in re3data/FAIRsharing (a domain repository such as GEO, SRA, dbGaP, PRIDE, or a generalist such as Zenodo, Dryad, Dataverse) and name it explicitly in the paper. A lab website is not an archive: it has no retention commitment and no accession. For neuroimaging data, deposit in OpenNeuro or NeuroVault.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper states that the authors do not have permission to share data, so no repository is named as the holder of the study's own data. The OSF link is for materials, not data.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"a_data_openly_accessible","dimension":"A","label":"Access route free of preconditions","action":"Remove the precondition or justify it. Release the data at publication with no embargo, no registration wall, and no approval step — NIH's zero-embargo public- access rule (NOT-OD-25-101) has already made 'available at publication' the federal baseline for the article; the data should not lag behind it. For neuroimaging data, deposit in OpenNeuro or NeuroVault.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The data availability statement explicitly says 'The authors do not have permission to share data', indicating that the data are not openly accessible and no followable route is provided.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"r_reuse_license","dimension":"R","label":"Reuse licence","action":"Attach a standard, machine-readable open licence to the deposit — CC0 or CC BY, which is what Horizon Europe and most funders expect — and print the licence identifier in the paper. 'Free to use' is not a licence: it grants nothing a reuser's institution can rely on.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper is under a CC BY license, but that applies to the article, not the data. No license or terms are named for the data itself.","gain":16.67,"priority":"essential","scored":true},{"key":"f_dataset_cited","dimension":"F","label":"Dataset formally cited","action":"Cite the dataset in the reference list like a publication — creator, year, title, repository, DOI/accession — and cite it in-text where it is used. Only a reference- list entry is machine-readable to Crossref/DataCite, and only a citation lets the data earn credit. Cite the neuroimaging repository accession (e.g. from OpenNeuro or NeuroVault) in the reference list.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper's own dataset (morphometricity estimates, code) is not cited in the reference list; the UK Biobank resource is cited but that is not the study's own data.","gain":8.33,"priority":"important","scored":true},{"key":"i_open_nonproprietary_format","dimension":"I","label":"Open file format","action":"Release the data in an open, community-standard format (CSV/TSV, JSON, HDF5, NetCDF, FASTQ, VCF, NIfTI…) instead of — or alongside — any proprietary or instrument-native format, and name the format in the paper. A dataset that needs a €2,000 licence to open is not reusable. Prefer open neuroimaging formats such as NIfTI or BIDS.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not name any file format for the released data; the code is on GitHub but no format token for the data is given.","gain":8.33,"priority":"important","scored":true},{"key":"x_code_availability","dimension":"R","label":"Analysis code available","action":"Publish the analysis code in a public forge, archive a tagged release with a DOI (Zenodo/Software Heritage), and cite that DOI in the paper. NIH DMS Element 2 asks for the tools and code, not only the data — and 'available on request' is not a locator. Archive the analysis code in a versioned repository (GitHub + a Zenodo release DOI).","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper provides a GitHub URL for the analysis code (https://annafurtjes.github.io/Comparing_atlases/), which is a machine-resolvable locator. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]","gain":4.17,"priority":"important","scored":true},{"key":"r_versioning","dimension":"R","label":"Snapshot identified","action":"Version the deposit and cite the exact version analysed (a version-specific DOI, or an accession with its version suffix). A reader reproducing your work against 'the current release' is reproducing it against a different dataset.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not provide a version token or date for the study's own data; the data are not released as a versioned resource.","gain":4.17,"priority":"useful","scored":true},{"key":"x_funding_attribution","dimension":"R","label":"Funder and award number","action":"State the funder AND the award number in the paper, and put them in the dataset's FundingReference metadata. A funder name alone cannot be linked back to the award, so the funding provenance of the data is lost the moment the paper is indexed.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper lists specific grant numbers including R01AG054628, MR/R024790/1, and App1161356, providing award-level funding attribution. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (4/5 passes agreed)]","gain":2.08,"priority":"useful","scored":true},{"key":"f_data_availability_statement","dimension":"F","label":"Data-availability statement","action":"Replace the statement with the repository template: name the repository and give the accession or DOI (Colavizza category 3). This is the only DAS class associated with a measured citation advantage; 'available on reasonable request' and 'within the article' are not.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The data availability statement declares that the data cannot be shared ('The authors do not have permission to share data'), which is Colavizza category 0 (no route), so the verdict is no.","gain":0.0,"priority":"essential","scored":false},{"key":"f_discovery_metadata","dimension":"F","label":"Description of the dataset as an object","action":"Add a 'Data Records' section: itemise every file in the deposit and every variable or sample it holds, with counts and units. Describe the dataset as an object in its own right, not as a by-product of the findings — this is what makes it discoverable to someone who is not looking for your paper.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not provide an itemized inventory of the dataset (files, variables, records) that it generated; it only describes the UK Biobank source data and methods.","gain":0.0,"priority":"essential","scored":false},{"key":"a_access_conditions_stated","dimension":"A","label":"Access level labelled","action":"State the access level in words, using the standard vocabulary: 'These data are open access' / 'These data are controlled access'. A reader — and a harvester — should not have to infer the access level from the presence of a download link.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper does not provide any access-level label for the data; it only states that the data cannot be shared, which implies no access conditions are described.","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"i_community_standard_vocabulary","dimension":"I","label":"Community standard / vocabulary","action":"Adopt and NAME your domain's data standard — the minimum-information checklist, metadata schema, or ontology your community uses (MIAME/MINSEQE, ISA-Tab, BIDS, an OBO ontology, HL7 FHIR/OMOP) — and say which one you followed. A reporting checklist standardises your paper; it does nothing for your data. In neuroimaging, describe the data with BIDS, NIfTI or DICOM.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"No community-standard metadata schema, ontology, or checklist is applied to the study's own data; the paper uses standard atlases but does not apply them as a metadata standard to the released data.","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"r_provenance_methods","dimension":"R","label":"Provenance of the data","action":"Name the instruments, kits, and software — with versions — that produced the data, not just the verbs. 'Reads were aligned' is not provenance; 'aligned with STAR v2.7.9a to GRCh38' is, because someone else can rerun it.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"partial","current":0.5,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper names specific software and versions used to produce the data, such as 'FreeSurfer 6.0' and 'OSCA software', providing provenance information. [downgraded to 'partial' — no verifiable quote from the paper] [majority verdict 'partial' (2/5 passes agreed)]","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"r_documentation_codebook","dimension":"R","label":"Documentation / codebook","action":"Ship a README and a data dictionary IN the deposit — every file, every variable, its units, its allowed values, its missing-value codes. It is the cheapest single thing that makes a dataset usable by someone who was not in the lab, and a table buried in the article does not travel with the data.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"No documentation object (README, codebook, data dictionary) is mentioned as accompanying the data; the data are not shared.","gain":0.0,"priority":"important","scored":false},{"key":"a_controlled_access_for_sensitive","dimension":"A","label":"Gatekeeper for sensitive data","action":"Route sensitive data through an institutional gatekeeper — deposit in a controlled- access repository (dbGaP, EGA) with a Data Access Committee and a published DUA — rather than through the corresponding author's inbox. An author-gated dataset dies with the author's email address, and 'on reasonable request' has been shown repeatedly not to yield data.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper states that the authors do not have permission to share data, but no institutional gatekeeper is named for the study's own data. The UK Biobank data used is controlled-access, but the study's own derived data are not shared.","gain":0.0,"priority":"useful","scored":false},{"key":"a_timeline_retention","dimension":"A","label":"Availability timing & retention","action":"State when the data become available AND how long they will be retained — cite the repository's preservation policy. NIH DMS Element 4 asks for both; most papers give neither.","anchors":["yes","partial","no"],"verdict":"no","current":0.0,"evidence":null,"why":"The paper makes no statement about when the data are available or how long they persist; the data are not shared.","gain":0.0,"priority":"useful","scored":false}],"suggestions":["Mint or cite a persistent identifier for the dataset — a repository DOI or an accession from a registered repository — and print it in the paper. A bare URL is not persistent: it is the single most common cause of a dead data link five years after publication. For neuroimaging data, deposit in OpenNeuro or NeuroVault.","Deposit the data in a repository registered in re3data/FAIRsharing (a domain repository such as GEO, SRA, dbGaP, PRIDE, or a generalist such as Zenodo, Dryad, Dataverse) and name it explicitly in the paper. A lab website is not an archive: it has no retention commitment and no accession. For neuroimaging data, deposit in OpenNeuro or NeuroVault.","Remove the precondition or justify it. Release the data at publication with no embargo, no registration wall, and no approval step — NIH's zero-embargo public- access rule (NOT-OD-25-101) has already made 'available at publication' the federal baseline for the article; the data should not lag behind it. For neuroimaging data, deposit in OpenNeuro or NeuroVault.","Attach a standard, machine-readable open licence to the deposit — CC0 or CC BY, which is what Horizon Europe and most funders expect — and print the licence identifier in the paper. 'Free to use' is not a licence: it grants nothing a reuser's institution can rely on.","Cite the dataset in the reference list like a publication — creator, year, title, repository, DOI/accession — and cite it in-text where it is used. Only a reference- list entry is machine-readable to Crossref/DataCite, and only a citation lets the data earn credit. Cite the neuroimaging repository accession (e.g. from OpenNeuro or NeuroVault) in the reference list."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash","agent_version":"fair_agent_v8","fulltext_source":"unpaywall_pdf"},"fair_model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash","fair_agent_version":"fair_agent_v8","fair_fulltext_source":"unpaywall_pdf","fair_has_llm":true,"fair_computed_at":"2026-07-20T11:24:44.664962Z","clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}