ArticleBrain sciences2019
Evaluating Alternative Correction Methods for Multiple Comparison in Functional Neuroimaging Research.
Article in Brain sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of thresholding methods for activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis via large-scale simulations.Human brain mapping · 2022Pooled it
- Influence of individual's age on the characteristics of brain effective connectivity.GeroScience · 2025Article
- Neural correlates of religious behavior related to Christianity: an ALE meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The Brain Connectome for Clinical Neuroscience.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
- Social and non-social working memory in neurodegeneration.Neurobiology of disease · 2023Article
- Personal socio-cultural preferences modulate neural correlates of decisions to socialize with powerful persons.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- Computational approaches to predicting treatment response to obesity using neuroimaging.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2022Review
- Multimodal mechanisms of human socially reinforced learning across neurodegenerative diseases.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2022Article
- Identification of a Brain Network Underlying the Execution of Freely Chosen Movements.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021Article
- Early post-treatment blood oxygenation level-dependent responses to emotion processing associated with clinical response to pharmacological treatment in major depressive disorder.Brain and behavior · 2021Article
- Acute cognitive impairment after traumatic brain injury predicts the occurrence of brain atrophy patterns similar to those observed in Alzheimer's disease.GeroScience · 2021Article
- Article
- Multimodal neuroimaging protocol to explore the neural mechanisms of Tiao Shen Li Yan acupuncture in post-stroke dysphagia: a randomized sham-controlled clinical trial.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
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
A significant challenge for fMRI research is statistically controlling for false positives without omitting true effects. Although a number of traditional methods for multiple comparison correction exist, several alternative tools have been developed that do not rely on strict parametric assumptions, but instead implement alternative methods to correct for multiple comparisons. In this study, we evaluated three of these methods, Statistical non-Parametric Mapping (SnPM), 3DClustSim, and Threshold Free Cluster Enhancement (TFCE), by examining which method produced the most consistent outcomes even when spatially-autocorrelated noise was added to the original images. We assessed the false alarm rate and hit rate of each method after noise was applied to the original images.
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.