ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2021
Paired test of matrix graphs and brain connectivity analysis.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Inferring brain connectivity network and quantifying the significance of interactions between brain regions are of paramount importance in neuroscience. Although there have recently emerged some tests for graph inference based on independent samples, there is no readily available solution to test the change of brain network for paired and correlated samples. In this article, we develop a paired test of matrix graphs to infer brain connectivity network when the groups of samples are correlated. The proposed test statistic is both bias corrected and variance corrected, and achieves a small estimation error rate. The subsequent multiple testing procedure built on this test statistic is guaranteed to asymptotically control the false discovery rate at the pre-specified level. Both the methodology and theory of the new test are considerably different from the two independent samples framework, owing to the strong correlations of measurements on the same subjects before and after the stimulus activity. We illustrate the efficacy of our proposal through simulations and an analysis of an Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative dataset.
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.