The influence of study-level inference models and study set size on coordinate-based fMRI meta-analyses
Citation:
Bossier, H., Seurinck, R., Kuhn, S., Banaschewski, T., Barker, G.J., Bokde, A.L.W., Martinot, J.-L., Lemaitre, H., Paus, T., Millenet, S., Moerkerke, B., The influence of study-level inference models and study set size on coordinate-based fMRI meta-analyses, Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2018, 11, 745Download Item:
fnins-11-00745.pdf (PDF) 6.875Mb
Abstract:
Given the increasing amount of neuroimaging studies, there is a growing need to summarize published results. Coordinate-based meta-analyses use the locations of statistically significant local maxima with possibly the associated effect sizes to aggregate studies. In this paper, we investigate the influence of key characteristics of a coordinate-based meta-analysis on (1) the balance between false and true positives and (2) the activation reliability of the outcome from a coordinate-based meta-analysis.More particularly, we consider the influence of the chosen group level model at the study level [fixed effects, ordinary least squares (OLS), or mixed effects models], the type of coordinate-based meta-analysis [Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) that only uses peak locations, fixed effects, and random effects meta-analysis that take into account both peak location and height] and the amount of studies included in the analysis (from 10to 35). To do this, we apply a resampling scheme on a large dataset (N=1,400) to create a test condition and compare this with an independent evaluation condition. The test condition corresponds to subsampling participants into studies and combine these using meta-analyses. The evaluation condition corresponds to a high-powered group analysis.We observe the best performance when using mixed effects models in individual studies combined with a random effects meta-analysis. Moreover the performance increases with the number of studies included in the meta-analysis. When peak height is not taken into consideration, we show that the popular ALE procedure is a good alternative in terms of the balance between type I and II errors. However, it requires more studies compared to other procedures in terms of activation reliability. Finally, we discuss the differences,interpretations, and limitations of our results
Author's Homepage:
http://people.tcd.ie/bokdea
Author: BOKDE, ARUN
Publisher:
Frontiers MediaType of material:
Journal ArticleSeries/Report no:
Frontiers in Neuroscience;11;
JAN;
Availability:
Full text availableKeywords:
Coordinate-based meta-analysis, fMRI, Group modeling, Mixed effects models, Random effects models, ReliabilityDOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00745Licences: