ArticleScientific reports2016
Robust Statistical Detection of Power-Law Cross-Correlation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiscale detrended cross-correlation coefficient: estimating coupling in non-stationary neurophysiological signals.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Scale-Free Coupled Dynamics in Brain Networks Captured by Bivariate Focus-Based Multifractal Analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We show that widely used approaches in statistical physics incorrectly indicate the existence of power-law cross-correlations between financial stock market fluctuations measured over several years and the neuronal activity of the human brain lasting for only a few minutes. While such cross-correlations are nonsensical, no current methodology allows them to be reliably discarded, leaving researchers at greater risk when the spurious nature of cross-correlations is not clear from the unrelated origin of the time series and rather requires careful statistical estimation. Here we propose a theory and method (PLCC-test) which allows us to rigorously and robustly test for power-law cross-correlations, correctly detecting genuine and discarding spurious cross-correlations, thus establishing meaningful relationships between processes in complex physical systems. Our method reveals for the first time the presence of power-law cross-correlations between amplitudes of the alpha and beta frequency ranges of the human electroencephalogram.
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.