Standardized Effect Sizes and Image-Based Meta-Analytical Approaches for fMRI Data

Scientific progress is based on the ability to compare opposing theories and thereby develop consensus among existing hypotheses or create new ones. We argue that data aggregation (i.e. combine data across studies or research groups) for neuroscience is an important tool in this process. An important prerequisite is the ability to directly compare fMRI results over studies. In this paper, we discuss how an observed effect size in an fMRI data-analysis can be transformed into a standardized effect size. We demonstrate how these enable direct comparison and data aggregation over studies. Furthermore, we also discuss the influence of key parameters in the design of an fMRI experiment (such as number of scans and the sample size) on (statistical) properties of standardized effect sizes. In the second part of the paper, we give an overview of two approaches to aggregate fMRI results over studies. The first corresponds to extending the two-level general linear model approach as is typically used in individual fMRI studies with a third level. This requires the parameter estimates corresponding to the group models from each study together with estimated variances and meta-data. Unfortunately, there is a risk of running into unit mismatches when the primary studies use different scales to measure the BOLD response. To circumvent, it is possible to aggregate (unitless) standardized effect sizes which can be derived from summary statistics. We discuss a general model to aggregate these and different approaches to deal with between-study heterogeneity. Furthermore, we hope to further promote the usage of standardized effect sizes in fMRI research.

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

[2]  R. Kirk Practical Significance: A Concept Whose Time Has Come , 1996 .

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

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

[5]  Radu Tanasescu,et al.  Coordinate based random effect size meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies , 2016, NeuroImage.

[6]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[7]  Yves Rosseel,et al.  neuRosim: An R Package for Generating fMRI Data , 2011 .

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

[9]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

[10]  K. Zakzanis,et al.  Statistics to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: formulae, illustrative numerical examples, and heuristic interpretation of effect size analyses for neuropsychological researchers. , 2001, Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists.

[11]  A. Mocroft,et al.  Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Chronic Kidney Disease in HIV Infection Using Prospective Cohort Data from the D:A:D Study , 2015, PLoS medicine.

[12]  P. Cummings,et al.  Arguments for and against standardized mean differences (effect sizes). , 2011, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[13]  Jacob Cohen Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

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

[15]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Data sharing in neuroimaging research , 2012, Front. Neuroinform..

[16]  J.A. Mumford,et al.  Modeling and inference of multisubject fMRI data , 2006, IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine.

[17]  B. T. Thomas Yeo,et al.  Inference in the age of big data: Future perspectives on neuroscience , 2017, NeuroImage.

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

[19]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data , 2011, Nature Methods.

[20]  Freya Acar,et al.  Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI , 2018, PloS one.

[21]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Generalisability, Random Effects & Population Inference , 1998, NeuroImage.

[22]  Marianne C. Reddan,et al.  Effect Size Estimation in Neuroimaging. , 2017, JAMA psychiatry.

[23]  R. Rosenthal The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results , 1979 .

[24]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Sharing brain mapping statistical results with the neuroimaging data model , 2016, Scientific Data.

[25]  Stephen W. Raudenbush,et al.  Analyzing effect sizes: Random-effects models. , 2009 .

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

[27]  Karl J. Friston Ten ironic rules for non-statistical reviewers , 2012, NeuroImage.

[28]  Tor D Wager,et al.  Neuroimaging studies of shifting attention: a meta-analysis , 2004, NeuroImage.

[29]  Essa Yacoub,et al.  The WU-Minn Human Connectome Project: An overview , 2013, NeuroImage.

[30]  P. Elliott,et al.  UK Biobank: An Open Access Resource for Identifying the Causes of a Wide Range of Complex Diseases of Middle and Old Age , 2015, PLoS medicine.

[31]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[32]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta‐Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge , 2000 .

[33]  Thomas E. Nichols Multiple testing corrections, nonparametric methods, and random field theory , 2012, NeuroImage.

[34]  Ralf Bender,et al.  Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis† , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

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

[36]  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.

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

[38]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Advances in functional and structural MR image analysis and implementation as FSL , 2004, NeuroImage.

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

[40]  M. Lindquist The Statistical Analysis of fMRI Data. , 2008, 0906.3662.

[41]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model , 2005 .

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

[43]  R W Cox,et al.  AFNI: software for analysis and visualization of functional magnetic resonance neuroimages. , 1996, Computers and biomedical research, an international journal.

[44]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Advances in statistical methods for meta-analysis , 1984 .

[45]  Joaquim Radua,et al.  What do results from coordinate-based meta-analyses tell us? , 2018, NeuroImage.

[46]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Simple group fMRI modeling and inference , 2009, NeuroImage.

[47]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Convolution Models for fMRI , 2007 .

[48]  Robert B. Gramacy,et al.  amei: An R Package for the Adaptive Management of Epidemiological Interventions , 2010 .

[49]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  APPLICATIONS OF THE NON-CENTRAL t-DISTRIBUTION , 1940 .

[50]  Prasad Patil,et al.  A statistical definition for reproducibility and replicability , 2016, bioRxiv.

[51]  Jordan M. Malof,et al.  Distributed solar photovoltaic array location and extent dataset for remote sensing object identification , 2016, Scientific Data.

[52]  Martin A. Lindquist,et al.  Evaluating the consistency and specificity of neuroimaging data using meta-analysis , 2009, NeuroImage.

[53]  L. Hedges Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect size and Related Estimators , 1981 .

[54]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Mixed-effects and fMRI studies , 2005, NeuroImage.

[55]  Jean-Baptiste Poline,et al.  The general linear model and fMRI: Does love last forever? , 2012, NeuroImage.

[56]  Nicholas A. Bowman,et al.  Effect Sizes and Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis in Higher Education , 2012 .

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

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

[59]  G. Glass Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research1 , 1976 .

[60]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Analysis of functional MRI time‐series , 1994, Human Brain Mapping.

[61]  Jack Bowden,et al.  How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts? , 2010 .

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

[63]  Sergi G. Costafreda,et al.  Pooling fMRI Data: Meta-Analysis, Mega-Analysis and Multi-Center Studies , 2009, Front. Neuroinform..

[64]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Statistical parametric mapping , 2013 .

[65]  Mark W. Woolrich,et al.  Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference , 2004, NeuroImage.

[66]  Angela R. Laird,et al.  Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis , 2018, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[67]  J. Sánchez-Meca,et al.  A comparison of procedures to test for moderators in mixed-effects meta-regression models. , 2015, Psychological methods.

[68]  J. Hemelrijk,et al.  Some remarks on the combination of independent tests , 1953 .

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

[70]  M. Kendall Statistical Methods for Research Workers , 1937, Nature.

[71]  R. Poldrack,et al.  The publication and reproducibility challenges of shared data , 2015, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[72]  Thomas E. Nichols,et al.  Controlling the familywise error rate in functional neuroimaging: a comparative review , 2003, Statistical methods in medical research.

[73]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[74]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  A General Statistical Analysis for fMRI Data , 2000, NeuroImage.

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

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

[77]  Chukiat Viwatwongkasem,et al.  Some general points in estimating heterogeneity variance with the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. , 2002, Biostatistics.

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