Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33724597›Full record

ArticleHuman brain mapping2021

Improving the sensitivity of cluster-based statistics for functional magnetic resonance imaging data.

Linda Geerligs, Eric Maris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human brain mapping, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors.

Linda GeerligsDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Eric MarisDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5166-1800

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because of the high dimensionality of neuroimaging data, identifying a statistical test that is both valid and maximally sensitive is an important challenge. Here, we present a combination of two approaches for functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data analysis that together result in substantial improvements of the sensitivity of cluster-based statistics. The first approach is to create novel cluster definitions that optimize sensitivity to plausible effect patterns. The second is to adopt a new approach to combine test statistics with different sensitivity profiles, which we call the min(p) method. These innovations are made possible by using the randomization inference framework. In this article, we report on a set of simulations and analyses of real task fMRI data that demonstrate (a) that the proposed methods control the false-alarm rate, (b) that the sensitivity profiles of cluster-based test statistics vary depending on the cluster defining thresholds and cluster definitions, and (c) that the min(p) method for combining these test statistics results in a drastic increase of sensitivity (up to fivefold), compared to existing fMRI analysis methods. This increase in sensitivity is not at the expense of the spatial specificity of the inference.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalModels, StatisticalBrainCluster AnalysisFunctional NeuroimagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingRandom AllocationSensitivity and Specificitycluster inferencefalse positivesfMRInonparametricrandomizationsensitivitystatistics

Identifiers

PMID33724597
PMCPMC8127161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.