ArticleNeuroImage2013
Ironing out the statistical wrinkles in "ten ironic rules".
Article in NeuroImage, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Potential reporting bias in fMRI studies of the brain.PloS one · 2013Pooled it
- Multimodal predictive modeling of individual treatment outcome in cocaine dependence with combined neuroimaging and behavioral predictors.Drug and alcohol dependence · 2014Trial
- Impact of sample size and regression of tissue-specific signals on effective connectivity within the core default mode network.Human brain mapping · 2023Article
- Fronto-parietal homotopy in resting-state functional connectivity predicts task-switching performance.Brain structure & function · 2022Article
- Testing the Magnitude of Correlations Across Experimental Conditions.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Influence of sample size and analytic approach on stability and interpretation of brain-behavior correlations in task-related fMRI data.Human brain mapping · 2021Article
- Autosomal Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Disease: Analysis of genetic subgroups by Machine Learning.An international journal on information fusion · 2020Article
- Ten simple rules for predictive modeling of individual differences in neuroimaging.NeuroImage · 2019Review
- Neuroimaging of individual differences: A latent variable modeling perspective.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2019Review
- Sparse Sampling of Silence Type I Errors With an Emphasis on Primary Auditory Cortex.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- The impact of sample size on the reproducibility of voxel-based lesion-deficit mappings.Neuropsychologia · 2018Article
- The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences.Behavior research methods · 2018Article
- Meta-Analysis of the Structural Equation Models' Parameters for the Estimation of Brain Connectivity withFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2018Review
- Article
- Improving effect size estimation and statistical power with multi-echo fMRI and its impact on understanding the neural systems supporting mentalizing.NeuroImage · 2016Article
- Stimulus-Driven Reorienting Impairs Executive Control of Attention: Evidence for a Common Bottleneck in Anterior Insula.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2016Article
- Task-independent effects are potential confounders in longitudinal imaging studies of learning in schizophrenia.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2016Article
- Functional Connectivity Is Altered in Concussed Adolescent Athletes Despite Medical Clearance to Return to Play: A Preliminary Report.Frontiers in neurology · 2016Article
- Cross-validation and hypothesis testing in neuroimaging: An irenic comment on the exchange between Friston and Lindquist et al.NeuroImage · 2015Article
- Attempted and successful compensation in preclinical and early manifest neurodegeneration - a review of task FMRI studies.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The article "Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers" (Friston, 2012) shares some commonly heard frustrations about the peer-review process that all researchers can identify with. Though we found the article amusing, we have some concerns about its description of a number of statistical issues. In this commentary we address these issues, as well as the premise of the article.
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.