Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533067›Full record

ArticleNeuroImage2019

Spatial confidence sets for raw effect size images.

Alexander Bowring, Fabian Telschow, Armin Schwartzman, Thomas E Nichols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NeuroImage, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. SPM-30 years and beyond.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inverse set estimation and inversion of simultaneous confidence intervals.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied statistics · 2024
    Article
  6. Spatial confidence regions for combinations of excursion sets in image analysis.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical methodology · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Alexander BowringBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Fabian TelschowDivision of Biostatistics, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Armin SchwartzmanDivision of Biostatistics, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA; Halicioğlu Data Science Institute, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Thomas E NicholsBig Data Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. Electronic address: thomas.nichols@bdi.ox.ac.uk.

Funding

Spatial inference methods for image analysisR01EB026859 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SCHWARTZMAN, ARMIN · 2019 to 2022
$1.7M
Multiple testing methods for random fields and high-dimensional dependent dataR01CA157528 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI SCHWARTZMAN, ARMIN · 2012 to 2017
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA157528NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB026859Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 100309/Z/12/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mass-univariate approach for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) analysis remains a widely used statistical tool within neuroimaging. However, this method suffers from at least two fundamental limitations: First, with sufficient sample sizes there is high enough statistical power to reject the null hypothesis everywhere, making it difficult if not impossible to localize effects of interest. Second, with any sample size, when cluster-size inference is used a significant p-value only indicates that a cluster is larger than chance. Therefore, no notion of confidence is available to express the size or location of a cluster that could be expected with repeated sampling from the population. In this work, we address these issues by extending on a method proposed by Sommerfeld et al. (2018) (SSS) to develop spatial Confidence Sets (CSs) on clusters found in thresholded raw effect size maps. While hypothesis testing indicates where the null, i.e. a raw effect size of zero, can be rejected, the CSs give statements on the locations where raw effect sizes exceed, and fall short of, a non-zero threshold, providing both an upper and lower CS. While the method can be applied to any mass-univariate general linear model, we motivate the method in the context of blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) fMRI contrast maps for inference on percentage BOLD change raw effects. We propose several theoretical and practical implementation advancements to the original method formulated in SSS, delivering a procedure with superior performance in sample sizes as low as N=60. We validate the method with 3D Monte Carlo simulations that resemble fMRI data. Finally, we compute CSs for the Human Connectome Project working memory task contrast images, illustrating the brain regions that show a reliable %BOLD change for a given %BOLD threshold.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingBrainBrain MappingData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedSample Size

Identifiers

PMID31533067
PMCPMC6854455

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.