Blog
About

44
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Best practices in data analysis and sharing in neuroimaging using MRI

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Responding to widespread concerns about reproducibility, the Organization for Human Brain Mapping created a working group to identify best practices in data analysis, results reporting and data sharing to promote open and reproducible research in neuroimaging. We describe the challenges of open research and the barriers the field faces.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reproducible research in computational science.

           Roger Peng (2011)
          Computational science has led to exciting new developments, but the nature of the work has exposed limitations in our ability to evaluate published findings. Reproducibility has the potential to serve as a minimum standard for judging scientific claims when full independent replication of a study is not possible.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: a comparison of image-based and coordinate-based pooling of studies.

            With the rapid growth of neuroimaging research and accumulation of neuroinformatic databases the synthesis of consensus findings using meta-analysis is becoming increasingly important. Meta-analyses pool data across many studies to identify reliable experimental effects and characterize the degree of agreement across studies. Coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) methods are the standard approach, where each study entered into the meta-analysis has been summarized using only the (x, y, z) locations of peak activations (with or without activation magnitude) reported in published reports. Image-based meta-analysis (IBMA) methods use the full statistic images, and allow the use of hierarchical mixed effects models that account for differing intra-study variance and modeling of random inter-study variation. The purpose of this work is to compare image-based and coordinate-based meta-analysis methods applied to the same dataset, a group of 15 fMRI studies of pain, and to quantify the information lost by working only with the coordinates of peak activations instead of the full statistic images. We apply a 3-level IBMA mixed model for a "mega-analysis", and highlight important considerations in the specification of each model and contrast. We compare the IBMA result to three CBMA methods: ALE (activation likelihood estimation), KDA (kernel density analysis) and MKDA (multi-level kernel density analysis), for various CBMA smoothing parameters. For the datasets considered, we find that ALE at sigma=15 mm, KDA at rho=25-30 mm and MKDA at rho=15 mm give the greatest similarity to the IBMA result, and that ALE was the most similar for this particular dataset, though only with a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.45 (Dice measure ranges from 0 to 1). Based on this poor similarity, and the greater modeling flexibility afforded by hierarchical mixed models, we suggest that IBMA is preferred over CBMA. To make IBMA analyses practical, however, the neuroimaging field needs to develop an effective mechanism for sharing image data, including whole-brain images of both effect estimates and their standard errors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Making data sharing work: the FCP/INDI experience.

              Over a decade ago, the fMRI Data Center (fMRIDC) pioneered open-access data sharing in the task-based functional neuroimaging community. Well ahead of its time, the fMRIDC effort encountered logistical, sociocultural and funding barriers that impeded the field-wise instantiation of open-access data sharing. In 2009, ambitions for open-access data sharing were revived in the resting state functional MRI community in the form of two grassroots initiatives: the 1000 Functional Connectomes Project (FCP) and its successor, the International Neuroimaging Datasharing Initiative (INDI). Beyond providing open access to thousands of clinical and non-clinical imaging datasets, the FCP and INDI have demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale data aggregation for hypothesis generation and testing. Yet, the success of the FCP and INDI should not be confused with widespread embracement of open-access data sharing. Reminiscent of the challenges faced by fMRIDC, key controversies persist and include participant privacy, the role of informatics, and the logistical and cultural challenges of establishing an open science ethos. We discuss the FCP and INDI in the context of these challenges, highlighting the promise of current initiatives and suggesting solutions for possible pitfalls. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature Neuroscience
                Nat Neurosci
                Springer Nature
                1097-6256
                1546-1726
                February 23 2017
                February 23 2017
                : 20
                : 3
                : 299-303
                Article
                10.1038/nn.4500
                28230846
                © 2017
                Product

                Comments

                Comment on this article