Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates

@WiringTheBrain https://t.co/78RsBpBYmj

Doing research without knowing how to do... As said Altman in 1994, it's a "scandal"... https://t.co/rQP3lotyIg

Examples for neuroimaging 3: - Will we move away from using p<0.01 as cluster forming threshold and using more non-parametric tests after the clusterf$%@ debacle? 8/n @ten_photos @wandedob https://t.co/rIDS7f0kV0

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/kbUSVp2FLv

https://t.co/5A9TcZs774

RT @DocDellaire: @rob_beiko Validation of mechanisms by which metabolites/RNAs, immune responses etc induced by microbiota actually explain…

@rob_beiko Validation of mechanisms by which metabolites/RNAs, immune responses etc induced by microbiota actually explain correlations with phenotypes. This is an area that needs much attention to avoid a similar fate to the "woo" around Functional MRI

I located the key paper on the fMRI analysis problem, I think. It’s an interesting story. I’d be interested in what people see as the ‘moral’ of the story, if there is one. I _think_ it mostly has to do with the power of data sharing. https://t.co/K7Lj5N

@joarguterstam Även om man struntar i könsskillnader och bara ser till metoden: https://t.co/24CS0jRG0D https://t.co/mpAdzIqmoN

@zreagh Sure, but you have plenty of other things to worry about wrt methods and interpretation (e.g., https://t.co/Xea3bZbxos)

@deevybee Using a broad-brush definition of “psychologists”, does this count? https://t.co/N1gB8QWgvv (Disclaimer: I know no detail and believe it turned out less bad than thought.)

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/AqyODfjXNR #datascience #analytics

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

Good Lord! Now I know what @page88 was talking about in Magic & Loss. https://t.co/tLlXA6NT6t

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

RT @DataSciFact: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/62fMC8mgof

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/Q5xmErekwE via @nuzzel

And now for something completely different. Cluster correction by @wandedob and @ten_photos CK: thinks that the point of the paper is to NOT use cluster correction, while the paper is saying to USE permutation based cluster correction as we did. https://t.

Questionable statistical methods in fMRI investigations? https://t.co/AClTnMLSOF

😱 up to 70% of false positives during years https://t.co/kGl4NzgIcj https://t.co/Axo87aNsnN

RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…

Thanks for the tip, I wrote the paper https://t.co/5zjBTf669B

@wandedob Stil interested? For me it is definitelly this one: https://t.co/5PyEiSP4pf #tldr Cluster fMRI studies have false positivity around 70%.

@Mark_A_Thornton I think the cluster failure paper showed some corroborating evidence: https://t.co/5Qx3Ob53Yh

https://t.co/Orrocag3wb

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/at87pV57FK

@tbrissaire De plus la significativité des résultats d'IRMf est remise en cause par les chercheurs eux mêmes https://t.co/DqkRCh0SUO

@SeverianX No, no es un campo muy serio. Tienen graves fallas metodológicas principalmente https://t.co/OUNsTg1wbQ , https://t.co/oW844vc9OU, etc.

@practiCalfMRI @ETagliazucchi @Labrigger Also, it sounds like false positives to me due to poor multiple comparison control. See @wandedob et @ten_photos 's https://t.co/eb7zQERjEu

@Werner See also https://t.co/5orSqrOu7H turns out statistical miss understandings has led to faulty interpretation of the raw data

Why fMRI Inferences for Spatial Extent Have Inflated False-Positive Rates https://t.co/6GTMjjsT5S

Why fMRI Inferences for Spatial Extent Have Inflated False-Positive Rates https://t.co/lm9rVv7WUb

@DaveclarkR I'm still flabbergasted at the MRI baseline issues https://t.co/8HdYZ0gReQ

The most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70% https://t.co/4FyzsPEagB

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/oj7eAzlAP0

@chrisoldfield be careful. BOLD MRI is full of errors. https://t.co/Jbei9q6sj7

RT @BlakeLaPierre: @akornblatt, I haven't said anything about peer review, but I disagree that it can be trusted. Peers kept approving: htt…

@akornblatt, I haven't said anything about peer review, but I disagree that it can be trusted. Peers kept approving: https://t.co/mTtEOL4lid https://t.co/FMatRFNm6z

@mnitabach @wandedob did something along those lines with his Cluster failure paper, but not exactly what you are proposing https://t.co/6vmM4WhyT5

RT @INCForg: .@wandedob: the analyses in our PNAS paper took 25 days with BROCCOLI. Would take decades with FSL https://t.co/XqlIRewNQJ #bh…

.@wandedob: the analyses in our PNAS paper took 25 days with BROCCOLI. Would take decades with FSL https://t.co/XqlIRewNQJ #bhg17

#neuroscience #psychology #science https://t.co/JeUWKX5ZYK The software for fMRI analysis results in false-positive rates of up to 70% ins…

RT @carlesmuntaner: Data alone does not speak https://t.co/qnDxdbxouO

RT @carlesmuntaner: Data alone does not speak https://t.co/qnDxdbxouO

Data alone does not speak https://t.co/qnDxdbxouO

RT @camerontw: @nicolasnova fMRI - the fake news source for all your favorite biodeterministic research https://t.co/ahPuHwZs6n

@nicolasnova fMRI - the fake news source for all your favorite biodeterministic research https://t.co/ahPuHwZs6n

And also our (mis)understanding of statistics! https://t.co/gIwp857TgH https://t.co/RGN1WgDreF

😮 https://t.co/k9snfMX6dP

Acabo de descobrir que Ressonância Magnética Funcional (fMRI) tem uma taxa de falso-positivo de até 70% (!!!) https://t.co/Q9lQHln8tY

Um exemplo disso é o artigo de Eklund (2016) https://t.co/xZCTQjrnRa

Ai!, la "Ciència" (i, en especial, la neuroimatge)! Que tantíssim agrada a molts, argument definitiu tantes vegades! https://t.co/JqcVe2lq76

@LebensTourist @sixtus Derartige Studien die unter anderem auf MRI Scans beruhen sind mit Vorsicht zu genießen. https://t.co/CI9MiU3jrL

Meraklısına fMRI daki yazılım bug u hakkında. https://t.co/JFJfQSG2M3 https://t.co/6BUNJV9Fu6 https://t.co/iD31uQiH2v

RT @Parsons_CNS: Software bug causes concerns about findings from years of fMRI-based brain research: https://t.co/kac0ZcGIiR

RT @Parsons_CNS: Software bug causes concerns about findings from years of fMRI-based brain research: https://t.co/kac0ZcGIiR

RT @lofalexandria: #neuroscience #psychology #science https://t.co/JeUWKX5ZYK The software for fMRI analysis results in false-positive rate…

RT @Parsons_CNS: Software bug causes concerns about findings from years of fMRI-based brain research: https://t.co/kac0ZcGIiR

RT @Parsons_CNS: Software bug causes concerns about findings from years of fMRI-based brain research: https://t.co/kac0ZcGIiR

Software bug causes concerns about findings from years of fMRI-based brain research: https://t.co/kac0ZcGIiR

@AgnesWold @bodin_anna Låter som en av de där felaktiga fMRI-studierna. Se https://t.co/mUkMNv1QY7 – fMRI ska tas med en stor nypa salt.

@AgnesWold kan inte kommentera just det pappret, men 40% av 241 fMRI papper justerar inte för multiple testing. https://t.co/5wrTgfj7Yy

@AgnesWold @EiramRu @bodin_anna @NCBI Dra inte för stora växlar: studie med få deltagare + tveksam korrektion för falskt positiva fynd, jmf https://t.co/DYDZ9dYokK av @wandedob

#neuroscience #psychology #science https://t.co/JeUWKX5ZYK The software for fMRI analysis results in false-positive rates of up to 70% ins…

https://t.co/PJgZ9se6CZ Ibland älskar jag Linköping.

@Brain_Craft Hi Braincraft! Just read this paper: https://t.co/fk36TJ6hZT. How do you think it may affect neuroscience?

https://t.co/BJCWBYYJni - Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates Functional MRI (fMRI…

PNAS | Mobile https://t.co/jdbGnyci6q

https://t.co/0Lgys0toeU 40,000 published studies using MRI may be wrong: software flaw That's why we make our own tools @RioNeuro #craftsmen

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates | PNAS https://t.co/sRj38fETBa

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates | PNAS https://t.co/w7N5u2yNNj

@DucMantua Per si no ho sabies: https://t.co/ZiY9n2S3iW

#softwaretesting https://t.co/bl01ZwPn4F

RT @Roran_Stehl: @stillgray @sie_kensou77 @motherboard @erikkain https://t.co/wT07s53VsH and we're done.

@stillgray @sie_kensou77 @motherboard @erikkain https://t.co/wT07s53VsH and we're done.

@csabaorban @schoppik related research on (crazy) high false positive rates for fMRI: https://t.co/beu5yavC9x

RT @LEAD_Coalition: Why #fmri inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/dsSoxXDDMV and https://t.co/RtY…

Pour tout ceux qui utlisent de l'IRMf #fmri #cluster https://t.co/C1lLxftWFc

#fMRI #Brain https://t.co/oL3dXAspDa

Oops! Inaccurate fMRI Data. Some 40,000 studies' results may be affected. https://t.co/eSh0NwL8bw #DataForensics #OpenData #OpenScience

Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/36HPeVsU3v

Why #fmri inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/dsSoxXDDMV and… https://t.co/zzdWQhR6Qa

RT @neuroraf: On cluster failure paper and fMRI false positive results https://t.co/Rsvt72QQBp in the @guardian by @CyrilRPernet https://t.…

RT @neuroraf: On cluster failure paper and fMRI false positive results https://t.co/Rsvt72QQBp in the @guardian by @CyrilRPernet https://t.…

RT @neuroraf: On cluster failure paper and fMRI false positive results https://t.co/Rsvt72QQBp in the @guardian by @CyrilRPernet https://t.…

On cluster failure paper and fMRI false positive results https://t.co/Rsvt72QQBp in the @guardian by @CyrilRPernet… https://t.co/PsgTbyByw2

@nntaleb how do psychologists and pop-scientists sleep when fMRIs have been known for false positive rates of 70%. https://t.co/PopzHAQ1Vf

Media loves a brain study, but as Nat'l Academies points out, brain imaging may not be accurate or reliable. https://t.co/Mr0Jl0tNA1 https://t.co/unK6TZCsLg

Why you should never p: False error rate in fMRI 70% instead of 5% b/c non-Gaussianity cc @masterbaboon https://t.co/XG5mlMAz8D

Wish more was made of the finding that PCC was the hot spot of false positive activation from this paper https://t.co/sIYQvv2mdP

WOW... WHAT?! 40,000 medical studies down the drain for medical researchers. MRI software is invalid https://t.co/rHnUfUx609 #medicalnews

@EssiViding Yes of course you are right. But surely fMRI disasters like https://t.co/yCVhG2tzXf are a product of poor understanding?