Better living through transparency: Improving the reproducibility of fMRI results through comprehensive methods reporting

Recent studies suggest that a greater proportion of published scientific findings than expected cannot be replicated. The field of functional neuroimaging research is no exception to this trend, with estimates of false positive results ranging from 10 % to 40 %. While false positive results in neuroimaging studies stem from a variety of causes, incomplete methodological reporting is perhaps the most obvious: Most published reports of neuroimaging studies provide ambiguous or incomplete descriptions of their methods and results. If neuroimaging researchers do not report methods and results in adequate detail, independent scientists can neither check their work for errors nor accurately replicate their efforts. Thus, I argue that comprehensive methods reporting is essential for reproducible research. I recommend three strategies for improving transparency and reproducibility in neuroimaging research: improving natural language descriptions of research protocols; sharing source code for data collection and analysis; and sharing formal, machine-readable representations of methods and results. Last, I discuss the technological and cultural barriers to implementing these recommendations and suggest steps toward overcoming those barriers.

[1]  Joshua W. Brown,et al.  Learned Predictions of Error Likelihood in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex , 2005, Science.

[2]  Joshua Carp,et al.  On the Plurality of (Methodological) Worlds: Estimating the Analytic Flexibility of fMRI Experiments , 2012, Front. Neurosci..

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

[4]  C. Begley,et al.  Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research , 2012, Nature.

[5]  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.

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

[7]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[8]  Russell A. Poldrack,et al.  Guidelines for reporting an fMRI study , 2008, NeuroImage.

[9]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  [The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]. , 2007, Gaceta sanitaria.

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

[11]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

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

[13]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. , 2003, Clinical chemistry.

[14]  David B. Keator,et al.  Towards structured sharing of raw and derived neuroimaging data across existing resources , 2012, NeuroImage.

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

[16]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals , 2005, The Lancet.

[17]  Jennifer M. Urban,et al.  Shining Light into Black Boxes , 2012, Science.

[18]  P. Bossuyt,et al.  The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement , 2006, Neurology.

[19]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  A 21 Word Solution , 2012 .

[20]  Satrajit S. Ghosh,et al.  Nipype: A Flexible, Lightweight and Extensible Neuroimaging Data Processing Framework in Python , 2011, Front. Neuroinform..

[21]  D. Moher,et al.  Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[22]  Darrel C. Ince,et al.  The case for open computer programs , 2012, Nature.

[23]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. , 2003, Radiology.

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

[25]  Matthias Egger,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies , 2007, PLoS medicine.

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

[27]  F. Prinz,et al.  Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[28]  M. Botvinick,et al.  Error-likelihood prediction in the medial frontal cortex: a critical evaluation. , 2007, Cerebral cortex.

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

[30]  D Moher,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. , 2001, Annals of internal medicine.