Sample size evolution in neuroimaging research: An evaluation of highly-cited studies (1990–2012) and of latest practices (2017–2018) in high-impact journals

[1]  Howard Bowman,et al.  I Tried a Bunch of Things: The Dangers of Unexpected Overfitting in Classification , 2016, bioRxiv.

[2]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Dataset Decay: the problem of sequential analyses on open datasets , 2019, bioRxiv.

[3]  J. Ioannidis.  Publishing research with P-values: Prescribe more stringent statistical significance or proscribe statistical significance? , 2019, European heart journal.

[4]  N. Lazar,et al.  Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05” , 2019, The American Statistician.

[5]  Sander Greenland,et al.  Scientists rise up against statistical significance , 2019, Nature.

[6]  David Gal,et al.  Abandon Statistical Significance , 2017, The American Statistician.

[7]  Aron K Barbey,et al.  Small sample sizes reduce the replicability of task-based fMRI studies , 2018, Communications Biology.

[8]  Martin A. Lindquist,et al.  Effect Size and Power in fMRI Group Analysis , 2018, bioRxiv.

[9]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Mapping the universe of registered reports , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[10]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design , 2018, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[11]  Nicholas P. Holmes,et al.  Justify your alpha , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[12]  Tor D Wager,et al.  The relation between statistical power and inference in fMRI , 2017, PloS one.

[13]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature , 2017, PLoS biology.

[14]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  A manifesto for reproducible science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[15]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Scanning the horizon: towards transparent and reproducible neuroimaging research , 2016, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[16]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI , 2017, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  Christopher D. Chambers,et al.  Redefine statistical significance , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment , 2016, bioRxiv.

[19]  Denes Szucs,et al.  A Tutorial on Hunting Statistical Significance by Chasing N , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[20]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  The brain imaging data structure, a format for organizing and describing outputs of neuroimaging experiments , 2016, Scientific Data.

[21]  Ruth Seurinck,et al.  Power and sample size calculations for fMRI studies based on the prevalence of active peaks , 2016, bioRxiv.

[22]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015. , 2016, JAMA.

[23]  Scott D. Brown,et al.  A purely confirmatory replication study of structural brain-behavior correlations , 2015, Cortex.

[24]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Reproducibility in Science: Improving the Standard for Basic and Preclinical Research , 2015, Circulation research.

[25]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention , 2014, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Ron Goeree,et al.  The Reporting of Observational Clinical Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies: A Systematic Review , 2014, PloS one.

[27]  John Suckling,et al.  Are power calculations useful? A multicentre neuroimaging study , 2014, Human brain mapping.

[28]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis , 2014, The Lancet.

[29]  Michael Ingre,et al.  Why small low-powered studies are worse than large high-powered studies and how to protect against “trivial” findings in research: Comment on Friston (2012) , 2013, NeuroImage.

[30]  Martin A. Lindquist,et al.  Ironing out the statistical wrinkles in “ten ironic rules” , 2013, NeuroImage.

[31]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain , 2013, PloS one.

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

[33]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting , 2012, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[34]  Joshua Carp,et al.  The secret lives of experiments: Methods reporting in the fMRI literature , 2012, NeuroImage.

[35]  J. Mumford.  A power calculation guide for fMRI studies. , 2012, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[36]  Jennifer J. Richler,et al.  Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[37]  C. Glenn Begley,et al.  Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012 .

[38]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  False-Positive Psychology , 2011, Psychological science.

[39]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Meta‐research: The art of getting it wrong , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[40]  T. Yarkoni.  Big Correlations in Little Studies: Inflated fMRI Correlations Reflect Low Statistical Power—Commentary on Vul et al. (2009) , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[41]  L. Hedges,et al.  Introduction to Meta‐Analysis , 2009, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[42]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated , 2008, Epidemiology.

[43]  Nick F. Ramsey,et al.  Within-subject variation in BOLD-fMRI signal changes across repeated measurements: Quantification and implications for sample size , 2008, NeuroImage.

[44]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Power calculation for group fMRI studies accounting for arbitrary design and temporal autocorrelation , 2008, NeuroImage.

[45]  S. Hayasaka,et al.  Power and sample size calculation for neuroimaging studies by non-central random field theory , 2007, NeuroImage.

[46]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[47]  J. Ioannidis.  Molecular evidence‐based medicine , 2007, European journal of clinical investigation.

[48]  R. McGrath,et al.  When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d. , 2006, Psychological methods.

[49]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[50]  J. Ioannidis.  Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. , 2005, JAMA.

[51]  Feng Li,et al.  An Introduction to Metaanalysis , 2005 .

[52]  Kevin Murphy,et al.  An empirical investigation into the number of subjects required for an event-related fMRI study , 2004, NeuroImage.

[53]  Gary H Glover,et al.  Estimating sample size in functional MRI (fMRI) neuroimaging studies: Statistical power analyses , 2002, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[54]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Statistical limitations in functional neuroimaging. II. Signal detection and statistical inference. , 1999, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[55]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  How Many Subjects Constitute a Study? , 1999, NeuroImage.

[56]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies , 1989 .

[57]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , 1933 .