ArticleFrontiers in neuroimaging2023
Recalibrating single-study effect sizes using hierarchical Bayesian models.
Article in Frontiers in neuroimaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improved analysis of in vivo drug combination experiments with a comprehensive statistical framework and web-tool.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Reporting checklists in neuroimaging: promoting transparency, replicability, and reproducibility.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Review
- Harmonizing AI governance regulations and neuroinformatics: perspectives on privacy and data sharing.Frontiers in neuroinformatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
39 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: There are growing concerns about commonly inflated effect sizes in small neuroimaging studies, yet no study has addressed recalibrating effect size estimates for small samples. To tackle this issue, we propose a hierarchical Bayesian model to adjust the magnitude of single-study effect sizes while incorporating a tailored estimation of sampling variance. Methods: We estimated the effect sizes of case-control differences on brain structural features between individuals who were dependent on alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, methamphetamine, or cannabis and non-dependent participants for 21 individual studies (Total cases: 903; Total controls: 996). Then, the study-specific effect sizes were modeled using a hierarchical Bayesian approach in which the parameters of the study-specific effect size distributions were sampled from a higher-order overarching distribution. The posterior distribution of the overarching and study-specific parameters was approximated using the Gibbs sampling method. Results: The results showed shrinkage of the posterior distribution of the study-specific estimates toward the overarching estimates given the original effect sizes observed in individual studies. Differences between the original effect sizes (i.e., Cohen's d) and the point estimate of the posterior distribution ranged from 0 to 0.97. The magnitude of adjustment was negatively correlated with the sample size (r = -0.27, Discussion: Our findings demonstrate the utility of the hierarchical Bayesian model in recalibrating single-study effect sizes using information from similar studies. This suggests that Bayesian utilization of existing knowledge can be an effective alternative approach to improve the effect size estimation in individual studies, particularly for those with smaller samples.
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.