ArticleImaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.)2025
Detecting mild traumatic brain injury with MEG scan data: One-vs-K-sample tests.
Article in Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.), 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetoencephalography (MEG) scanner has been shown to be more accurate than other medical devices in detecting mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). However, MEG scan data in certain spectrum ranges can be skewed, multimodal, and heterogeneous which can mislead the conventional case-control analysis that requires the data to be homogeneous and normally distributed within the control group. To meet this challenge, we propose a flexible one-vs-K-sample testing procedure for detecting brain injury for a single-case versus heterogeneous controls. The new procedure begins with source magnitude imaging using MEG scan data in frequency domain, followed by region-wise contrast tests for abnormality between the case and controls. The critical values for these tests are automatically determined by cross-validation. We adjust the testing results for heterogeneity effects by similarity analysis. An asymptotic theory is established for the proposed test statistic. By simulated and real data analyses in the context of neurotrauma, we show that the proposed test outperforms commonly used nonparametric methods in terms of overall accuracy and ability in accommodating data non-normality and subject-heterogeneity.
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.