Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI
The importance of integrating research findings is incontrovertible and procedures for coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) such as Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) have become a popular approach to combine results of fMRI studies when only peaks of activation are reported. As meta-analytical...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2018-11, Vol.13 (11), p.e0208177-e0208177 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0208177 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | e0208177 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 13 |
creator | Acar, Freya Seurinck, Ruth Eickhoff, Simon B Moerkerke, Beatrijs |
description | The importance of integrating research findings is incontrovertible and procedures for coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) such as Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) have become a popular approach to combine results of fMRI studies when only peaks of activation are reported. As meta-analytical findings help building cumulative knowledge and guide future research, not only the quality of such analyses but also the way conclusions are drawn is extremely important. Like classical meta-analyses, coordinate-based meta-analyses can be subject to different forms of publication bias which may impact results and invalidate findings. The file drawer problem refers to the problem where studies fail to get published because they do not obtain anticipated results (e.g. due to lack of statistical significance). To enable assessing the stability of meta-analytical results and determine their robustness against the potential presence of the file drawer problem, we present an algorithm to determine the number of noise studies that can be added to an existing ALE fMRI meta-analysis before spatial convergence of reported activation peaks over studies in specific regions is no longer statistically significant. While methods to gain insight into the validity and limitations of results exist for other coordinate-based meta-analysis toolboxes, such as Galbraith plots for Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA) and funnel plots and egger tests for seed-based d mapping, this procedure is the first to assess robustness against potential publication bias for the ALE algorithm. The method assists in interpreting meta-analytical results with the appropriate caution by looking how stable results remain in the presence of unreported information that may differ systematically from the information that is included. At the same time, the procedure provides further insight into the number of studies that drive the meta-analytical results. We illustrate the procedure through an example and test the effect of several parameters through extensive simulations. Code to generate noise studies is made freely available which enables users to easily use the algorithm when interpreting their results. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0208177 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2140078987</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A563926419</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_2b7f61d7be31464ab3094d17121691c4</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A563926419</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-d2e7330772b0b148eaa2d7dcac0fa11a2459666cdbb9cb53095ca006902fcabb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUl1v0zAUjRCIjcE_QGCJl_HQ4o_Ejl8mVVOBSkVICJ6ta8fpXFK72M7E_j3umk0bmvLg-Pjcc--5OlX1luA5YYJ82oYxehjm--DtHFPcEiGeVadEMjrjFLPnD_5PqlcpbTFuWMv5y-qE4QbjtqlPq7-LlGxKzm9QDHpM2Zcbgg04nzLah2x9djCg_agHZyC74JF2kJDzaGGyuz5Ca_fbDu4qhA4tU3a7I3q-WC8_op3NMIMy6k3phPoQUf_tx-p19aKHIdk303lW_fq8_Hn5dbb-_mV1uVjPTCNZnnXUCsawEFRjTerWAtBOdAYM7oEQoHUjOeem01oa3TAsGwMYc4lpb0Brdla9P-ruh5DUtLSkKKkxFq1sRWGsjowuwFbtY5k-3qgATt0CIW4UxOzMYBXVouekE9oyUvMadOlXd0QQSrgkpi5aF1O3Ue9sZ8r2IgyPRB-_eHelNuFaccqFlLIInE8CMfwZbcpq55KxwwDehvF27mKNte2B-uE_6tPuJtYGigHn-1D6moOoWjScScprctCaP8EqX2d3zpSE9a7gjwrqY4GJIaVo-3uPBKtDPu-GUYd8qimfpezdw_3cF90Fkv0D77fjdQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2140078987</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Acar, Freya ; Seurinck, Ruth ; Eickhoff, Simon B ; Moerkerke, Beatrijs</creator><creatorcontrib>Acar, Freya ; Seurinck, Ruth ; Eickhoff, Simon B ; Moerkerke, Beatrijs</creatorcontrib><description>The importance of integrating research findings is incontrovertible and procedures for coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) such as Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) have become a popular approach to combine results of fMRI studies when only peaks of activation are reported. As meta-analytical findings help building cumulative knowledge and guide future research, not only the quality of such analyses but also the way conclusions are drawn is extremely important. Like classical meta-analyses, coordinate-based meta-analyses can be subject to different forms of publication bias which may impact results and invalidate findings. The file drawer problem refers to the problem where studies fail to get published because they do not obtain anticipated results (e.g. due to lack of statistical significance). To enable assessing the stability of meta-analytical results and determine their robustness against the potential presence of the file drawer problem, we present an algorithm to determine the number of noise studies that can be added to an existing ALE fMRI meta-analysis before spatial convergence of reported activation peaks over studies in specific regions is no longer statistically significant. While methods to gain insight into the validity and limitations of results exist for other coordinate-based meta-analysis toolboxes, such as Galbraith plots for Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA) and funnel plots and egger tests for seed-based d mapping, this procedure is the first to assess robustness against potential publication bias for the ALE algorithm. The method assists in interpreting meta-analytical results with the appropriate caution by looking how stable results remain in the presence of unreported information that may differ systematically from the information that is included. At the same time, the procedure provides further insight into the number of studies that drive the meta-analytical results. We illustrate the procedure through an example and test the effect of several parameters through extensive simulations. Code to generate noise studies is made freely available which enables users to easily use the algorithm when interpreting their results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208177</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30500854</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Activation analysis ; Algorithms ; Beer ; Bias ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biometrics ; Brain ; Brain - diagnostic imaging ; Brain Mapping - methods ; Brain Mapping - statistics & numerical data ; Brain research ; Computer simulation ; Data analysis ; Functional magnetic resonance imaging ; Health aspects ; Humans ; Information systems ; Likelihood Functions ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics & numerical data ; Mapping ; Mathematical analysis ; Medical ethics ; Medical imaging ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Neuroimaging ; Neurosciences ; Neuroses ; Noise ; Noise generation ; Obsessive compulsive disorder ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Robustness ; Science Policy ; Spatial analysis ; Stability analysis ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Statistical significance</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2018-11, Vol.13 (11), p.e0208177-e0208177</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2018 Acar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2018 Acar et al 2018 Acar et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-d2e7330772b0b148eaa2d7dcac0fa11a2459666cdbb9cb53095ca006902fcabb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-d2e7330772b0b148eaa2d7dcac0fa11a2459666cdbb9cb53095ca006902fcabb3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3150-5576</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267999/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6267999/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30500854$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Acar, Freya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seurinck, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eickhoff, Simon B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moerkerke, Beatrijs</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The importance of integrating research findings is incontrovertible and procedures for coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) such as Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) have become a popular approach to combine results of fMRI studies when only peaks of activation are reported. As meta-analytical findings help building cumulative knowledge and guide future research, not only the quality of such analyses but also the way conclusions are drawn is extremely important. Like classical meta-analyses, coordinate-based meta-analyses can be subject to different forms of publication bias which may impact results and invalidate findings. The file drawer problem refers to the problem where studies fail to get published because they do not obtain anticipated results (e.g. due to lack of statistical significance). To enable assessing the stability of meta-analytical results and determine their robustness against the potential presence of the file drawer problem, we present an algorithm to determine the number of noise studies that can be added to an existing ALE fMRI meta-analysis before spatial convergence of reported activation peaks over studies in specific regions is no longer statistically significant. While methods to gain insight into the validity and limitations of results exist for other coordinate-based meta-analysis toolboxes, such as Galbraith plots for Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA) and funnel plots and egger tests for seed-based d mapping, this procedure is the first to assess robustness against potential publication bias for the ALE algorithm. The method assists in interpreting meta-analytical results with the appropriate caution by looking how stable results remain in the presence of unreported information that may differ systematically from the information that is included. At the same time, the procedure provides further insight into the number of studies that drive the meta-analytical results. We illustrate the procedure through an example and test the effect of several parameters through extensive simulations. Code to generate noise studies is made freely available which enables users to easily use the algorithm when interpreting their results.</description><subject>Activation analysis</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Beer</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biometrics</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Brain - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Brain Mapping - methods</subject><subject>Brain Mapping - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Brain research</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Functional magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Health aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information systems</subject><subject>Likelihood Functions</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Mapping</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Neuroimaging</subject><subject>Neurosciences</subject><subject>Neuroses</subject><subject>Noise</subject><subject>Noise generation</subject><subject>Obsessive compulsive disorder</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Robustness</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Spatial analysis</subject><subject>Stability analysis</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUl1v0zAUjRCIjcE_QGCJl_HQ4o_Ejl8mVVOBSkVICJ6ta8fpXFK72M7E_j3umk0bmvLg-Pjcc--5OlX1luA5YYJ82oYxehjm--DtHFPcEiGeVadEMjrjFLPnD_5PqlcpbTFuWMv5y-qE4QbjtqlPq7-LlGxKzm9QDHpM2Zcbgg04nzLah2x9djCg_agHZyC74JF2kJDzaGGyuz5Ca_fbDu4qhA4tU3a7I3q-WC8_op3NMIMy6k3phPoQUf_tx-p19aKHIdk303lW_fq8_Hn5dbb-_mV1uVjPTCNZnnXUCsawEFRjTerWAtBOdAYM7oEQoHUjOeem01oa3TAsGwMYc4lpb0Brdla9P-ruh5DUtLSkKKkxFq1sRWGsjowuwFbtY5k-3qgATt0CIW4UxOzMYBXVouekE9oyUvMadOlXd0QQSrgkpi5aF1O3Ue9sZ8r2IgyPRB-_eHelNuFaccqFlLIInE8CMfwZbcpq55KxwwDehvF27mKNte2B-uE_6tPuJtYGigHn-1D6moOoWjScScprctCaP8EqX2d3zpSE9a7gjwrqY4GJIaVo-3uPBKtDPu-GUYd8qimfpezdw_3cF90Fkv0D77fjdQ</recordid><startdate>20181130</startdate><enddate>20181130</enddate><creator>Acar, Freya</creator><creator>Seurinck, Ruth</creator><creator>Eickhoff, Simon B</creator><creator>Moerkerke, Beatrijs</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3150-5576</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181130</creationdate><title>Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI</title><author>Acar, Freya ; Seurinck, Ruth ; Eickhoff, Simon B ; Moerkerke, Beatrijs</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c593t-d2e7330772b0b148eaa2d7dcac0fa11a2459666cdbb9cb53095ca006902fcabb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Activation analysis</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Beer</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biometrics</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Brain - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Brain Mapping - methods</topic><topic>Brain Mapping - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Brain research</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Functional magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Health aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information systems</topic><topic>Likelihood Functions</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Mapping</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Neuroimaging</topic><topic>Neurosciences</topic><topic>Neuroses</topic><topic>Noise</topic><topic>Noise generation</topic><topic>Obsessive compulsive disorder</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Robustness</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Spatial analysis</topic><topic>Stability analysis</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Acar, Freya</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seurinck, Ruth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eickhoff, Simon B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moerkerke, Beatrijs</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Acar, Freya</au><au>Seurinck, Ruth</au><au>Eickhoff, Simon B</au><au>Moerkerke, Beatrijs</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2018-11-30</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>13</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0208177</spage><epage>e0208177</epage><pages>e0208177-e0208177</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The importance of integrating research findings is incontrovertible and procedures for coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) such as Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) have become a popular approach to combine results of fMRI studies when only peaks of activation are reported. As meta-analytical findings help building cumulative knowledge and guide future research, not only the quality of such analyses but also the way conclusions are drawn is extremely important. Like classical meta-analyses, coordinate-based meta-analyses can be subject to different forms of publication bias which may impact results and invalidate findings. The file drawer problem refers to the problem where studies fail to get published because they do not obtain anticipated results (e.g. due to lack of statistical significance). To enable assessing the stability of meta-analytical results and determine their robustness against the potential presence of the file drawer problem, we present an algorithm to determine the number of noise studies that can be added to an existing ALE fMRI meta-analysis before spatial convergence of reported activation peaks over studies in specific regions is no longer statistically significant. While methods to gain insight into the validity and limitations of results exist for other coordinate-based meta-analysis toolboxes, such as Galbraith plots for Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA) and funnel plots and egger tests for seed-based d mapping, this procedure is the first to assess robustness against potential publication bias for the ALE algorithm. The method assists in interpreting meta-analytical results with the appropriate caution by looking how stable results remain in the presence of unreported information that may differ systematically from the information that is included. At the same time, the procedure provides further insight into the number of studies that drive the meta-analytical results. We illustrate the procedure through an example and test the effect of several parameters through extensive simulations. Code to generate noise studies is made freely available which enables users to easily use the algorithm when interpreting their results.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>30500854</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0208177</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3150-5576</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2018-11, Vol.13 (11), p.e0208177-e0208177 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2140078987 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
subjects | Activation analysis Algorithms Beer Bias Biology and Life Sciences Biometrics Brain Brain - diagnostic imaging Brain Mapping - methods Brain Mapping - statistics & numerical data Brain research Computer simulation Data analysis Functional magnetic resonance imaging Health aspects Humans Information systems Likelihood Functions Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Magnetic Resonance Imaging - statistics & numerical data Mapping Mathematical analysis Medical ethics Medical imaging Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Meta-Analysis as Topic Neuroimaging Neurosciences Neuroses Noise Noise generation Obsessive compulsive disorder People and Places Physical Sciences Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data Research and Analysis Methods Robustness Science Policy Spatial analysis Stability analysis Statistical analysis Statistical methods Statistical significance |
title | Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T13%3A12%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20robustness%20against%20potential%20publication%20bias%20in%20Activation%20Likelihood%20Estimation%20(ALE)%20meta-analyses%20for%20fMRI&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Acar,%20Freya&rft.date=2018-11-30&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0208177&rft.epage=e0208177&rft.pages=e0208177-e0208177&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0208177&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA563926419%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2140078987&rft_id=info:pmid/30500854&rft_galeid=A563926419&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_2b7f61d7be31464ab3094d17121691c4&rfr_iscdi=true |