5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving power in functional magnetic resonance imaging by moving beyond cluster-level inference

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Localizing cognitive function to distinct brain areas has been a mainstay of human brain research since early reports that focal injuries produce changes in behavior. Yet, accumulating evidence shows that areas do not act in isolation. Here, we evaluate the practical implications of the localizationist perspective by comparing the performance of localizing versus broad-scale statistical procedures in real connectome data (1,000 subjects performing 7 tasks). We find that popular localizing procedures miss substantially more true effects than simple broad-scale procedures. By highlighting the power of simple alternatives, we argue that moving beyond localization is viable and can help unlock opportunities for human neuroscience discovery.

          Abstract

          Inference in neuroimaging typically occurs at the level of focal brain areas or circuits. Yet, increasingly, well-powered studies paint a much richer picture of broad-scale effects distributed throughout the brain, suggesting that many focal reports may only reflect the tip of the iceberg of underlying effects. How focal versus broad-scale perspectives influence the inferences we make has not yet been comprehensively evaluated using real data. Here, we compare sensitivity and specificity across procedures representing multiple levels of inference using an empirical benchmarking procedure that resamples task-based connectomes from the Human Connectome Project dataset (∼1,000 subjects, 7 tasks, 3 resampling group sizes, 7 inferential procedures). Only broad-scale (network and whole brain) procedures obtained the traditional 80% statistical power level to detect an average effect, reflecting >20% more statistical power than focal (edge and cluster) procedures. Power also increased substantially for false discovery rate– compared with familywise error rate–controlling procedures. The downsides are fairly limited; the loss in specificity for broad-scale and FDR procedures was relatively modest compared to the gains in power. Furthermore, the broad-scale methods we introduce are simple, fast, and easy to use, providing a straightforward starting point for researchers. This also points to the promise of more sophisticated broad-scale methods for not only functional connectivity but also related fields, including task-based activation. Altogether, this work demonstrates that shifting the scale of inference and choosing FDR control are both immediately attainable and can help remedy the issues with statistical power plaguing typical studies in the field.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Gene set enrichment analysis: A knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles

            Although genomewide RNA expression analysis has become a routine tool in biomedical research, extracting biological insight from such information remains a major challenge. Here, we describe a powerful analytical method called Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) for interpreting gene expression data. The method derives its power by focusing on gene sets, that is, groups of genes that share common biological function, chromosomal location, or regulation. We demonstrate how GSEA yields insights into several cancer-related data sets, including leukemia and lung cancer. Notably, where single-gene analysis finds little similarity between two independent studies of patient survival in lung cancer, GSEA reveals many biological pathways in common. The GSEA method is embodied in a freely available software package, together with an initial database of 1,325 biologically defined gene sets.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.

              A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect. Here, we show that the average statistical power of studies in the neurosciences is very low. The consequences of this include overestimates of effect size and low reproducibility of results. There are also ethical dimensions to this problem, as unreliable research is inefficient and wasteful. Improving reproducibility in neuroscience is a key priority and requires attention to well-established but often ignored methodological principles.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                4 August 2022
                9 August 2022
                4 August 2022
                : 119
                : 32
                : e2203020119
                Affiliations
                [1] aDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine , New Haven, CT 06519;
                [2] bDepartment of Statistics, Indiana University Bloomington , Bloomington, IN 47408;
                [3] cMelbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;
                [4] dDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Melbourne , Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia;
                [5] eDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Yale School of Medicine , New Haven, CT 06520;
                [6] fInterdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University , New Haven, CT 06520;
                [7] gDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Yale University , New Haven, CT 06511;
                [8] hChild Study Center, Yale School of Medicine , New Haven, CT 06519
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: stephanie.noble@ 123456yale.edu .

                Edited by Marcus Raichle, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO; received March 7, 2022; accepted June 23, 2022

                Author contributions: S.N. conceived the study; S.N. and D.S. designed research; A.F.M. and A.Z. provided conceptual advice; S.N. performed research and contributed new analytic tools; A.F.M. proposed the inclusion of a multivariate inferential procedure; A.Z. proposed the inclusion of specificity benchmarking and community randomization tests; S.N. wrote the paper with contributions from A.F.M., A.Z., and D.S.; and D.S. provided supervision.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4804-5553
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4312-8974
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6301-1167
                Article
                202203020
                10.1073/pnas.2203020119
                9371642
                35925887
                e9e35ec6-3733-4241-a5fb-950bd42a953d
                Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                History
                : 23 June 2022
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                Funded by: HHS | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 100000025
                Award ID: K00MH122372
                Award Recipient : Stephanie Noble
                Funded by: HHS | NIH | National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) 100000070
                Award ID: R01EB027119
                Award Recipient : Amanda F Mejia
                Categories
                424
                Biological Sciences
                Neuroscience

                fmri,power,inference,network,empirical
                fmri, power, inference, network, empirical

                Comments

                Comment on this article