Coordinate based random effect size meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies

Abstract Low power in neuroimaging studies can make them difficult to interpret, and Coordinate based meta‐analysis (CBMA) may go some way to mitigating this issue. CBMA has been used in many analyses to detect where published functional MRI or voxel‐based morphometry studies testing similar hypotheses report significant summary results (coordinates) consistently. Only the reported coordinates and possibly t statistics are analysed, and statistical significance of clusters is determined by coordinate density. Here a method of performing coordinate based random effect size meta‐analysis and meta‐regression is introduced. The algorithm (ClusterZ) analyses both coordinates and reported t statistic or Z score, standardised by the number of subjects. Statistical significance is determined not by coordinate density, but by a random effects meta‐analyses of reported effects performed cluster‐wise using standard statistical methods and taking account of censoring inherent in the published summary results. Type 1 error control is achieved using the false cluster discovery rate (FCDR), which is based on the false discovery rate. This controls both the family wise error rate under the null hypothesis that coordinates are randomly drawn from a standard stereotaxic space, and the proportion of significant clusters that are expected under the null. Such control is necessary to avoid propagating and even amplifying the very issues motivating the meta‐analysis in the first place. ClusterZ is demonstrated on both numerically simulated data and on real data from reports of grey matter loss in multiple sclerosis (MS) and syndromes suggestive of MS, and of painful stimulus in healthy controls. The software implementation is available to download and use freely. HighlightsRandom effect meta‐analysis and meta‐regression of neuroimaging studies.Use reported t statistic or Z score not just reported coordinates.Estimate effect sizes that may be useful for sample size calculation.FCDR: interpretable cluster‐wise false discovery rate control of type 1 error.Free to use software implementation.

[1]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[2]  M. Lindquist,et al.  Meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging data: current and future directions. , 2007, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[3]  K. Zilles,et al.  Coordinate‐based activation likelihood estimation meta‐analysis of neuroimaging data: A random‐effects approach based on empirical estimates of spatial uncertainty , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[5]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: A general linear approach , 1994 .

[6]  Peter J. Diggle,et al.  Statistics: a data science for the 21st century , 2015 .

[7]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[8]  Guinevere F. Eden,et al.  Meta-Analysis of the Functional Neuroanatomy of Single-Word Reading: Method and Validation , 2002, NeuroImage.

[9]  J Radua,et al.  A new meta-analytic method for neuroimaging studies that combines reported peak coordinates and statistical parametric maps , 2012, European Psychiatry.

[10]  Joaquim Radua,et al.  Meta-analytical comparison of voxel-based morphometry studies in obsessive-compulsive disorder vs other anxiety disorders. , 2010, Archives of general psychiatry.

[11]  Hans-Peter Kriegel,et al.  A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise , 1996, KDD.

[12]  Angela R. Laird,et al.  Behavior, sensitivity, and power of activation likelihood estimation characterized by massive empirical simulation , 2016, NeuroImage.

[13]  Sylvain Chevillard,et al.  The functions erf and erfc computed with arbitrary precision and explicit error bounds , 2009, Inf. Comput..

[14]  J. Raduà,et al.  Localized grey matter atrophy in multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis of voxel-based morphometry studies and associations with functional disability , 2013, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[15]  M. E. Muller,et al.  A Note on the Generation of Random Normal Deviates , 1958 .

[16]  Dorothee P. Auer,et al.  Coordinate Based Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Data; False Discovery Control and Diagnostics , 2013, PloS one.

[17]  Angela R. Laird,et al.  Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis revisited , 2012, NeuroImage.

[18]  Beatriz Luna,et al.  Combining Brains: A Survey of Methods for Statistical Pooling of Information , 2002, NeuroImage.

[19]  Paul A. Taylor,et al.  Is the statistic value all we should care about in neuroimaging? , 2016, NeuroImage.

[20]  F. Barkhof,et al.  Grey Matter Atrophy in Multiple Sclerosis: Clinical Interpretation Depends on Choice of Analysis Method , 2016, PloS one.

[21]  W. J. Cottam,et al.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Functional Reorganisation in Chronic Pain and Neural Correlates of Pain Sensitisation: a Coordinate Based Meta-analysis of 266 Cutaneous Pain Fmri Studies , 2022 .

[22]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Minimal Data Needed for Valid & Accurate Image-Based fMRI Meta-Analysis , 2016, bioRxiv.

[23]  Stephen M. Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: A comparison of image-based and coordinate-based pooling of studies , 2009, NeuroImage.

[24]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience , 2013, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[25]  S. Costafreda.  Parametric coordinate-based meta-analysis: Valid effect size meta-analysis of studies with differing statistical thresholds , 2012, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[26]  Sergi Costafreda-Gonzalez.  Parametric coordinate-based meta-analysis: valid effect size meta-analysis of studies with differing statistical thresholds , 2012 .

[27]  Angela M. Uecker,et al.  ALE meta‐analysis: Controlling the false discovery rate and performing statistical contrasts , 2005, Human brain mapping.

[28]  Simon B Eickhoff,et al.  Minimizing within‐experiment and within‐group effects in activation likelihood estimation meta‐analyses , 2012, Human brain mapping.

[29]  Hans Knutsson,et al.  Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Dorothee P. Auer,et al.  Coordinate Based Meta-Analysis of Functional Neuroimaging Data Using Activation Likelihood Estimation; Full Width Half Max and Group Comparisons , 2014, PloS one.

[31]  J L Lancaster,et al.  Automated Talairach Atlas labels for functional brain mapping , 2000, Human brain mapping.

[32]  J. Brooks.  Why most published research findings are false: Ioannidis JP, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece , 2008 .

[33]  Katya Rubia,et al.  Anisotropic Kernels for Coordinate-Based Meta-Analyses of Neuroimaging Studies , 2014, Front. Psychiatry.

[34]  Michael B. Miller,et al.  The principled control of false positives in neuroimaging. , 2009, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[35]  W. J. Cottam,et al.  Coordinate based meta-analysis does not show grey matter atrophy in narcolepsy , 2015, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.