ArticleBrain and behavior2023
Geometry-derived statistical significance: A probabilistic framework for detecting true positive findings in MRI data.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Geometry-derived statistical significance: A probabilistic framework for detecting true positive findings in MRI data.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe false discovery rate (FDR) procedure does not incorporate the geometry of the random field and requires high statistical power at each voxel, a requirement not satisfied by the limited number of participants in imaging studies. Topological FDR, threshold free cluster enhancement (TFCE), and probabilistic TFCE improve statistical power by incorporating local geometry. However, topological FDR requires specifying a cluster defining threshold and TFCE requires specifying transformation weights.
methodsGeometry-derived statistical significance (GDSS) procedure overcomes these limitations by combining voxelwise p-values for the test statistic with the probabilities computed from the local geometry for the random field, thereby providing substantially greater statistical power than the procedures currently used to control for multiple comparisons. We use synthetic data and real-world data to compare its performance against the performance of these other, previously developed procedures.
resultsGDSS provided substantially greater statistical power relative to the comparator procedures, which was less variable to the number of participants. GDSS was more conservative than TFCE: that is, it rejected null hypotheses at voxels with much higher effect sizes than TFCE. Our experiments also showed that the Cohen's D effect size decreases as the number of participants increases. Therefore, sample size calculations from small studies may underestimate the participants required in larger studies. Our findings also suggest effect size maps should be presented along with p-value maps for correct interpretation of findings.
conclusionsGDSS compared with the other procedures provides considerably greater statistical power for detecting true positives while limiting false positives, especially in small sized (<40 participants) imaging cohorts.
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.