Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25918034›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2015

Cross-validation and hypothesis testing in neuroimaging: An irenic comment on the exchange between Friston and Lindquist et al.

Philip T Reiss

Abstract readComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Individualized Prediction and Clinical Staging of Bipolar Disorders using Neuroanatomical Biomarkers.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Philip T ReissDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; Nathan S. Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, Orangeburg, NY, USA. Electronic address: phil.reiss@nyumc.org.

Funding

The Neural Bases of Placebo Effects and their Relation to Regulatory ProcessesR01MH076136 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI WAGER, TOR D. · 2007 to 2023
$8.5M
fMRI-based Biomarkers for Multiple Components of PainR01DA035484 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI WAGER, TOR D. · 2013 to 2017
$3.1M
Statistical Methods for Mapping Human Brain DevelopmentR01MH095836 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI REISS, PHILIP T · 2012 to 2016
$2.1M
NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA035484NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH076136NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH095836
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The "ten ironic rules for statistical reviewers" presented by Friston (2012) prompted a rebuttal by Lindquist et al. (2013), which was followed by a rejoinder by Friston (2013). A key issue left unresolved in this discussion is the use of cross-validation to test the significance of predictive analyses. This note discusses the role that cross-validation-based and related hypothesis tests have come to play in modern data analyses, in neuroimaging and other fields. It is shown that such tests need not be suboptimal and can fill otherwise-unmet inferential needs.

Indexed as

NeuroimagingResearch DesignPeer Review, ResearchStatistics as TopicBrain decodingCross-validationLikelihood ratio testNeyman–Pearson LemmaNull hypothesisPermutation test

Identifiers

PMID25918034
PMCPMC4783767

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.