↓ Skip to main content

Objective Bayesian fMRI analysis—a pilot study in different clinical environments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Objective Bayesian fMRI analysis—a pilot study in different clinical environments
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00168
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joerg Magerkurth, Laura Mancini, William Penny, Guillaume Flandin, John Ashburner, Caroline Micallef, Enrico De Vita, Pankaj Daga, Mark J. White, Craig Buckley, Adam K. Yamamoto, Sebastien Ourselin, Tarek Yousry, John S. Thornton, Nikolaus Weiskopf

Abstract

Functional MRI (fMRI) used for neurosurgical planning delineates functionally eloquent brain areas by time-series analysis of task-induced BOLD signal changes. Commonly used frequentist statistics protect against false positive results based on a p-value threshold. In surgical planning, false negative results are equally if not more harmful, potentially masking true brain activity leading to erroneous resection of eloquent regions. Bayesian statistics provides an alternative framework, categorizing areas as activated, deactivated, non-activated or with low statistical confidence. This approach has not yet found wide clinical application partly due to the lack of a method to objectively define an effect size threshold. We implemented a Bayesian analysis framework for neurosurgical planning fMRI. It entails an automated effect-size threshold selection method for posterior probability maps accounting for inter-individual BOLD response differences, which was calibrated based on the frequentist results maps thresholded by two clinical experts. We compared Bayesian and frequentist analysis of passive-motor fMRI data from 10 healthy volunteers measured on a pre-operative 3T and an intra-operative 1.5T MRI scanner. As a clinical case study, we tested passive motor task activation in a brain tumor patient at 3T under clinical conditions. With our novel effect size threshold method, the Bayesian analysis revealed regions of all four categories in the 3T data. Activated region foci and extent were consistent with the frequentist analysis results. In the lower signal-to-noise ratio 1.5T intra-operative scanner data, Bayesian analysis provided improved brain-activation detection sensitivity compared with the frequentist analysis, albeit the spatial extents of the activations were smaller than at 3T. Bayesian analysis of fMRI data using operator-independent effect size threshold selection may improve the sensitivity and certainty of information available to guide neurosurgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 36 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 33%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Researcher 5 13%
Professor 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Neuroscience 5 13%
Psychology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,085
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,235
of 279,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#68
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.