RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
だれの責任になるんだろうfMRIバグ https://t.co/G77aHGuj6c
@AnaPopescu_SV https://t.co/WO4pmNsPkX this one?
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Trust but verify: https://t.co/DmDAjKfwPA
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @davidgruber: @katecrawford the associated journal article attached here for added value: https://t.co/fyhwtKw9en
RT @wolfejosh: If software is eating the world there will be a LOT of indigestion Crazy error rates in MRIs https://t.co/QNxrJo59vA https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @quantrad: When using novel algorithms and new data analytics, you better understand the underlying science https://t.co/ltRwDsKRI8 @SI…
When using novel algorithms and new data analytics, you better understand the underlying science https://t.co/ltRwDsKRI8 @SIIM_Tweets #SIIM
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
RT @adamcifu: Always hated fMRI research (pretty pictures without real conclusions). Never expected this kind of flaw. https://t.co/jcUfi4Q…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @davidgruber: @katecrawford the associated journal article attached here for added value: https://t.co/fyhwtKw9en
RT @RationalWiki: Bugs in MRI software put perhaps 40,000 scientific studies in question https://t.co/aE2S5xVwPB
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
Always hated fMRI research (pretty pictures without real conclusions). Never expected this kind of flaw. https://t.co/jcUfi4QhEV
What??? Bug in fMRi techniques could have resulted in 70% false positive rate. Wow! https://t.co/A9EGz9fw3J
RT @Aiims1742: Stunning! Here's the @PNASNews study https://t.co/aqrAS8ivCq Some more via @arstechnica https://t.co/AwM8uLilXi https://t.…
This is crazy. https://t.co/tMr52clUIj
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
fMRI에 많이 사용되는 소프트웨어 문제 때문에 그동안의 결과 해석이 큰 오류가 있을 수 있다는 주장을 하는 페이퍼가 PNAS에 올라왔음 이 주장이 사실이라면 파장이 상당할 듯 https://t.co/YglhZovMLJ
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Okay, so I've always been a bit skeptical about fMRI research, but this is a whole new level https://t.co/MQbguLf9uj
RT @davidgruber: @katecrawford the associated journal article attached here for added value: https://t.co/fyhwtKw9en
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @Aiims1742: Stunning! Here's the @PNASNews study https://t.co/aqrAS8ivCq Some more via @arstechnica https://t.co/AwM8uLilXi https://t.…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @EdwardTufte: #statistics #datascience #EMR PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?https:…
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
Para los que les interesan los estudios con fMRI: https://t.co/nKLayLKR1x , https://t.co/MfNMg1dZe8
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @IQAndreas: @katecrawford @o0karen0o More useful is the actual paper: https://t.co/8cxp9nUFrK Seems the bug didn't have as much impact o…
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
@matthewherper @Neuro_Skeptic @edyong209 Here's the paper, via @zooko https://t.co/na2aX06FA8
RT @zooko: Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
RT @301N: Also via @katecrawford a link to the original article https://t.co/3W0QI0Gitw https://t.co/5UV8KGYEHB
Also via @katecrawford a link to the original article https://t.co/3W0QI0Gitw https://t.co/5UV8KGYEHB
Goddammit! Does this mean an entire generation of brain science wasted!? https://t.co/jv0hmOhC0Y https://t.co/Dr4HeRsxAN
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Stunning! Here's the @PNASNews study https://t.co/aqrAS8ivCq Some more via @arstechnica https://t.co/AwM8uLilXi https://t.co/qbnmJIOvCF
No sign from quick scan of @PNASNews MRI paper that issues found were reported upstream. :( https://t.co/zFHvEgXqR5 @nickholway @TheRegister
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @EdwardTufte: #statistics #datascience #EMR PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?https:…
#statistics #datascience #EMR PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp
If software is eating the world there will be a LOT of indigestion Crazy error rates in MRIs https://t.co/QNxrJo59vA https://t.co/IavQ5mC4U2
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @EdwardTufte: PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
PNAS: fMRI software packages = false-positive rates 70%.Validity 40,000 fMRI studies?! https://t.co/4xf15IqGfp #dataviz #scicomm #analytics
"[T]he most common software packages for fMRI analysis ... can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%." https://t.co/lodBj0HG0k …
Imagine writing a paper which strongly questions the validity of 40, 000 other studies! Wowza! #Science https://t.co/5bpKSaiTfX
RT @davidgruber: @katecrawford the associated journal article attached here for added value: https://t.co/fyhwtKw9en
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Software de análise estatística de dados de ressonância magnética geram mais falsos positivo que o previsto. https://t.co/tUGs8hsOP6
Functional MRI softwares may have over inflated false positive rates up to 70%. https://t.co/tT1QAlZD8F
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Oh. Oh jeez. https://t.co/2mCUoshKww
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates: "[...] we found that the most common so… https://t.co/7q6M4VLDGO
Yikes: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies..." https://t.co/Zn2H6gtfQO
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
@katecrawford @o0karen0o More useful is the actual paper: https://t.co/8cxp9nUFrK Seems the bug didn't have as much impact on results...
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @davidgruber: @katecrawford the associated journal article attached here for added value: https://t.co/fyhwtKw9en
Wow. This why we need more open, robust, and reliable scientific software. fMRI inflated false positives https://t.co/lRRehGGM1w
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Ouch. Statisticians question assumptions behind analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and find… https://t.co/acm7fPzboX
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @fulhack: Gaussian assumption turned out to be wrong, 40k papers called into question https://t.co/QxneaT78hm (dad joke: is this the new…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
Check your code, folks. Source journal article here: https://t.co/3IZr2XIbXp https://t.co/jIukQqeZ99
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @fulhack: Gaussian assumption turned out to be wrong, 40k papers called into question https://t.co/QxneaT78hm (dad joke: is this the new…
Cluster failure! Must validate our methods before playing with our toys & stop wasting resources https://t.co/ffyRE6dRhQ @ten_photos
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…