Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27417345›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2016

Improving effect size estimation and statistical power with multi-echo fMRI and its impact on understanding the neural systems supporting mentalizing.

Michael V Lombardo, Bonnie Auyeung, Rosemary J Holt, Jack Waldman, Amber N V Ruigrok, Natasha Mooney, Edward T Bullmore, Simon Baron-Cohen, Prantik Kundu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing 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

57 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Michael V LombardoCenter for Applied Neuroscience, Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Cyprus; Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: mvlombardo@gmail.com.
Bonnie AuyeungAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK; Department of Psychology, School of Philosophy, Psychology, and Language Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK.
Rosemary J HoltAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Jack WaldmanAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Amber N V RuigrokAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Natasha MooneyAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Edward T BullmoreBrain Mapping Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Simon Baron-CohenAutism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK.
Prantik KunduSection on Advanced Functional Neuroimaging, Departments of Radiology & Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, USA. Electronic address: prantik.kundu@mssm.edu.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 093875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research is routinely criticized for being statistically underpowered due to characteristically small sample sizes and much larger sample sizes are being increasingly recommended. Additionally, various sources of artifact inherent in fMRI data can have detrimental impact on effect size estimates and statistical power. Here we show how specific removal of non-BOLD artifacts can improve effect size estimation and statistical power in task-fMRI contexts, with particular application to the social-cognitive domain of mentalizing/theory of mind. Non-BOLD variability identification and removal is achieved in a biophysical and statistically principled manner by combining multi-echo fMRI acquisition and independent components analysis (ME-ICA). Without smoothing, group-level effect size estimates on two different mentalizing tasks were enhanced by ME-ICA at a median rate of 24% in regions canonically associated with mentalizing, while much more substantial boosts (40-149%) were observed in non-canonical cerebellar areas. Effect size boosting occurs via reduction of non-BOLD noise at the subject-level and consequent reductions in between-subject variance at the group-level. Smoothing can attenuate ME-ICA-related effect size improvements in certain circumstances. Power simulations demonstrate that ME-ICA-related effect size enhancements enable much higher-powered studies at traditional sample sizes. Cerebellar effects observed after applying ME-ICA may be unobservable with conventional imaging at traditional sample sizes. Thus, ME-ICA allows for principled design-agnostic non-BOLD artifact removal that can substantially improve effect size estimates and statistical power in task-fMRI contexts. ME-ICA could mitigate some issues regarding statistical power in fMRI studies and enable novel discovery of aspects of brain organization that are currently under-appreciated and not well understood.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalAdolescentBrainBrain MappingCerebellumEcho-Planar ImagingFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleTheory of MindCerebellumDenoisingMentalizingMulti-echo EPIStatistical powerTask-fMRI

Identifiers

PMID27417345
PMCPMC5102698

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.