Effect size estimation in neuroimaging

JAMA Psychiatry

Volumn 74, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 207-208

  Reddan, Marianne C ^a   Lindquist, Martin A ^b   Wager, Tor D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRAIN FUNCTION; CLINICAL OUTCOME; EFFECT SIZE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; MACHINE LEARNING; NEUROIMAGING; NOTE; SELECTION BIAS; BRAIN; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EPIDEMIOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BIAS; BIOMARKERS; BRAIN; EFFECT MODIFIER, EPIDEMIOLOGIC; HUMANS; MACHINE LEARNING; NEUROIMAGING; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 85014649578     PISSN: 2168622X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3356     Document Type: Note

References (7)

1. Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013;4:863.
2. Grissom RJ, Kim JJ. Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and Multivariate Applications. New York, NY: Routledge; 2012.
3. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; 14(5):365-376.
4. Lindquist MA, Mejia A. Zen and the art of multiple comparisons. Psychosom Med. 2015;77(2): 114-125.
5. Chang LJ, Gianaros PJ, Manuck SB, Krishnan A, Wager TD. A sensitive and specific neural signature for picture-induced negative affect. PLoS Biol. 2015; 13(6):e1002180.
6. Ioannidis JPA. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 2008;19 (5):640-648.
7. Hastie T, Tibshirano R, Friedman J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. Stanford, CA: Springer; 2008.