DOC: expand explanation on why generic MCC methods are suboptimal (Is…

[Achintyasingh412]

…sue #912)

Closes # .

Changes proposed in this pull request:

Summary by Sourcery

Documentation:

• Expand the CBMA documentation with additional explanation of why generic multivariate coordinate-based meta-analysis methods may be suboptimal.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's guide (collapsed on small PRs)

Reviewer's Guide

This documentation-only change expands the CBMA guidance around the limitations of generic MCC methods, helping reviewers verify that the explanation is accurate, clear, and consistent with the documented analysis workflow.

File-Level Changes

Change	Details	Files
Expanded the CBMA documentation to explain why generic MCC methods can be suboptimal and to motivate more appropriate analysis choices.	Added six lines of explanatory guidance describing limitations of generic MCC approaches and their implications for users.	docs/cbma.rst

---

Tips and commands

Interacting with Sourcery

• Trigger a new review: Comment @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue discussions: Reply directly to Sourcery's review comments.
• Generate a GitHub issue from a review comment: Ask Sourcery to create an
  issue from a review comment by replying to it. You can also reply to a
  review comment with @sourcery-ai issue to create an issue from it.
• Generate a pull request title: Write @sourcery-ai anywhere in the pull
  request title to generate a title at any time. You can also comment
  @sourcery-ai title on the pull request to (re-)generate the title at any time.
• Generate a pull request summary: Write @sourcery-ai summary anywhere in
  the pull request body to generate a PR summary at any time exactly where you
  want it. You can also comment @sourcery-ai summary on the pull request to
  (re-)generate the summary at any time.
• Generate reviewer's guide: Comment @sourcery-ai guide on the pull
  request to (re-)generate the reviewer's guide at any time.
• Resolve all Sourcery comments: Comment @sourcery-ai resolve on the
  pull request to resolve all Sourcery comments. Useful if you've already
  addressed all the comments and don't want to see them anymore.
• Dismiss all Sourcery reviews: Comment @sourcery-ai dismiss on the pull
  request to dismiss all existing Sourcery reviews. Especially useful if you
  want to start fresh with a new review - don't forget to comment
  @sourcery-ai review to trigger a new review!

Customizing Your Experience

Access your dashboard to:

• Enable or disable review features such as the Sourcery-generated pull request
  summary, the reviewer's guide, and others.
• Change the review language.
• Add, remove or edit custom review instructions.
• Adjust other review settings.

Getting Help

• Contact our support team for questions or feedback.
• Visit our documentation for detailed guides and information.
• Keep in touch with the Sourcery team by following us on X/Twitter, LinkedIn or GitHub.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.}

[jdkent]

Thanks for the contribution, since you are referencing papers, we can cite them using restructured text, you will need to either add/use the reference in this file: https://github.com/neurostuff/NiMARE/blob/main/nimare/resources/references.bib

and cite it like :footcite:p:smith2009threshold in the document.

[jdkent]

here is an example of a citation.

[Achintyasingh412]

"Hi @jdkent, thank you for the helpful review and the citation example! I'll update the formatting right away and push the fix shortly."

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery assessment

Approved.

[Achintyasingh412]

Hi @jdkent, thank you for the guidance! I've updated the Frahm citation to use the :footcite:p: format as requested Please let me know if it looks good to go now.

[jdkent]

thanks for the change, please add a citeation for Eickhoff as well.

[jdkent]

please add the citation for Eickoff et al. 2016 as well.

[Achintyasingh412]

Hi @jdkent, thanks for catching that! I've added the Sphinx footcite tag for Eickhoff et al. (2016) right alongside Frahm. Please let me know if everything looks good to go now

[Achintyasingh412]

Hey @jdkent, just dropping a friendly ping on this PR whenever you have a spare moment to review. Let me know if any adjustments or further clarifications are needed!