ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
From Maps to Models: A Survey on the Reliability of Small Studies of Task-Based fMRI.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging is a powerful tool for studying brain function, but neuroimaging research produces ongoing concerns regarding small-sample studies and how to interpret them. Although it is well understood that larger samples are preferable, many situations require researchers to make judgments from small studies, including reviewing the existing literature, analyzing pilot data, or assessing subsamples. Quantitative guidance on how to make these judgments remains scarce. To address this, we leverage the Human Connectome Project's Young Adult dataset to survey various analyses-from regional activation maps to predictive models. We find that, for some classic analyses such as detecting regional activation or cluster peak location, studies with as few as 40 subjects are adequate, although this depends crucially on effect sizes. For predictive modeling, similar sizes can be adequate for detecting whether features are predictable, but at least an order of magnitude more (at least hundreds) may be required for developing consistent predictions. These results offer valuable insights for designing and interpreting fMRI studies, emphasizing the importance of considering effect size, sample size, and analysis approach when assessing the reliability of findings. We hope that this survey serves as a reference for identifying which kinds of research questions can be reliably answered with small-scale studies.
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.