ArticleNeuroImage2018
Topological false discovery rates for brain mapping based on signal height.
Article in NeuroImage, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Peak p-values and false discovery rate inference in neuroimaging.NeuroImage · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Correcting the effect of multiple testing is important in statistical parametric mapping. If the threshold is too liberal, then spurious claims may flood in; if it is too conservative, then true hints may be overlooked. It is highly desirable to combine random field theory and the false discovery rate (FDR) to achieve more powerful detection under gauged topological errors. However, the current FDR method based on peak height does not fully meet this expectation, and sometimes is more conservative than the traditional family-wise error rate method, for unexplained reasons. In this paper, we introduce a new topological FDR method based on signal height. As analyzed in theory and validated with extensive experiments, it controls error rates much more accurately than the peak FDR method does, and substantially gains detection power. In addition, we discover reasons behind the peak FDR method's under-performance, and formulate equations to predict the two methods' behavior.
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.