When fields lack consensus standard methods and accessible ground truths, reproducibility can be more of an ideal than a reality. Such has been the case for functional neuroimaging, where there exists a sprawling space of tools and processing pipelines. We provide a critical evaluation of the impact of differences across five independently developed minimal preprocessing pipelines for functional magnetic resonance imaging. We show that, even when handling identical data, interpipeline agreement was only moderate, critically shedding light on a factor that limits cross-study reproducibility. We show that low interpipeline agreement can go unrecognized until the reliability of the underlying data is high, which is increasingly the case as the field progresses. Crucially we show that, when interpipeline agreement is compromised, so too is the consistency of insights from brain-wide association studies. We highlight the importance of comparing analytic configurations, because both widely discussed and commonly overlooked decisions can lead to marked variation.

当字段缺乏共识标准方法和可访问的基本事实时，可重复性可能更像是一种理想而不是现实。功能性神经成像就是这种情况，那里存在着庞大的工具和处理管道空间。我们对五个独立开发的功能性磁共振成像最小预处理管道的差异影响进行了批判性评估。我们表明，即使在处理相同的数据时，管道间一致性也只是中等的，关键地揭示了限制交叉研究可重复性的因素。我们表明，在基础数据的可靠性很高之前，低管道间一致性可能不会被识别，随着油田的发展，这种情况越来越严重。至关重要的是，我们表明，当管道间一致性受到损害时，来自全脑关联研究的见解的一致性也会受到损害。我们强调了比较分析配置的重要性，因为广泛讨论和经常被忽视的决策都可能导致显著的变化。