Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24658234›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2014

Evaluation of statistical inference on empirical resting state fMRI.

Xue Yang, Hakmook Kang, Allen T Newton, Bennett A Landman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xue Yang
Hakmook Kang
Allen T Newton
Bennett A Landman
Vanderbilt University · US

Funding

NEUROIMAGING PREDICTORS OF COGNITIVE CHANGE AND RESPONSE TO THERAPYZ01AG000191 · NIA · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING · PI RESNICK, SUSAN M · 1997 to 2008
$1.9M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 AG000191NIA NIH HHS N01-AG-4-0012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern statistical inference techniques may be able to improve the sensitivity and specificity of resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) connectivity analysis through more realistic assumptions. In simulation, the advantages of such methods are readily demonstrable. However, quantitative empirical validation remains elusive in vivo as the true connectivity patterns are unknown and noise distributions are challenging to characterize, especially in ultra-high field (e.g., 7T fMRI). Though the physiological characteristics of the fMRI signal are difficult to replicate in controlled phantom studies, it is critical that the performance of statistical techniques be evaluated. The SIMulation EXtrapolation (SIMEX) method has enabled estimation of bias with asymptotically consistent estimators on empirical finite sample data by adding simulated noise . To avoid the requirement of accurate estimation of noise structure, the proposed quantitative evaluation approach leverages the theoretical core of SIMEX to study the properties of inference methods in the face of diminishing data (in contrast to increasing noise). The performance of ordinary and robust inference methods in simulation and empirical rs-fMRI are compared using the proposed quantitative evaluation approach. This study provides a simple, but powerful method for comparing a proxy for inference accuracy using empirical data.

Indexed as

Signal Processing, Computer-AssistedBrain MappingComputer SimulationHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingModels, StatisticalMonte Carlo MethodRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSignal-To-Noise Ratio

Identifiers

PMID24658234
PMCPMC5826557
OpenAlexW2017305893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.