Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29024299›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2018

Reproducibility of R-fMRI metrics on the impact of different strategies for multiple comparison correction and sample sizes.

Xiao Chen, Bin Lu, Chao-Gan Yan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 191 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
191citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

191 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

131 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Xiao ChenCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, China.
Bin LuCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, China.
Chao-Gan YanCAS Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3413-5977

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns regarding reproducibility of resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (R-fMRI) findings have been raised. Little is known about how to operationally define R-fMRI reproducibility and to what extent it is affected by multiple comparison correction strategies and sample size. We comprehensively assessed two aspects of reproducibility, test-retest reliability and replicability, on widely used R-fMRI metrics in both between-subject contrasts of sex differences and within-subject comparisons of eyes-open and eyes-closed (EOEC) conditions. We noted permutation test with Threshold-Free Cluster Enhancement (TFCE), a strict multiple comparison correction strategy, reached the best balance between family-wise error rate (under 5%) and test-retest reliability/replicability (e.g., 0.68 for test-retest reliability and 0.25 for replicability of amplitude of low-frequency fluctuations (ALFF) for between-subject sex differences, 0.49 for replicability of ALFF for within-subject EOEC differences). Although R-fMRI indices attained moderate reliabilities, they replicated poorly in distinct datasets (replicability < 0.3 for between-subject sex differences, < 0.5 for within-subject EOEC differences). By randomly drawing different sample sizes from a single site, we found reliability, sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) rose as sample size increased. Small sample sizes (e.g., < 80 [40 per group]) not only minimized power (sensitivity < 2%), but also decreased the likelihood that significant results reflect "true" effects (PPV < 0.26) in sex differences. Our findings have implications for how to select multiple comparison correction strategies and highlight the importance of sufficiently large sample sizes in R-fMRI studies to enhance reproducibility. Hum Brain Mapp 39:300-318, 2018. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Indexed as

BrainBrain MappingFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleReproducibility of ResultsRestSample SizeSex CharacteristicsVisual PerceptionYoung Adultmultiple comparison correction strategiespositive predictive valuereplicabilityreproducibilityresting-state fMRIsample sizesensitivitytest-retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID29024299
PMCPMC6866539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.