ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2013
Correcting power and p-value calculations for bias in diffusion tensor imaging.
Article in Magnetic resonance imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards Portable Large-Scale Image Processing with High-Performance Computing.Journal of digital imaging · 2018Review
- Vanderbilt University Institute of Imaging Science Center for Computational Imaging XNAT: A multimodal data archive and processing environment.NeuroImage · 2016Article
- Lessons of ALS imaging: Pitfalls and future directions - A critical review.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides quantitative parametric maps sensitive to tissue microarchitecture (e.g., fractional anisotropy, FA). These maps are estimated through computational processes and subject to random distortions including variance and bias. Traditional statistical procedures commonly used for study planning (including power analyses and p-value/alpha-rate thresholds) specifically model variability, but neglect potential impacts of bias. Herein, we quantitatively investigate the impacts of bias in DTI on hypothesis test properties (power and alpha-rate) using a two-sided hypothesis testing framework. We present theoretical evaluation of bias on hypothesis test properties, evaluate the bias estimation technique SIMEX for DTI hypothesis testing using simulated data, and evaluate the impacts of bias on spatially varying power and alpha rates in an empirical study of 21 subjects. Bias is shown to inflame alpha rates, distort the power curve, and cause significant power loss even in empirical settings where the expected difference in bias between groups is zero. These adverse effects can be attenuated by properly accounting for bias in the calculation of power and p-values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.