↓ Skip to main content

Classical Statistics and Statistical Learning in Imaging Neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
94 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
350 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
Classical Statistics and Statistical Learning in Imaging Neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00543
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danilo Bzdok

Abstract

Brain-imaging research has predominantly generated insight by means of classical statistics, including regression-type analyses and null-hypothesis testing using t-test and ANOVA. Throughout recent years, statistical learning methods enjoy increasing popularity especially for applications in rich and complex data, including cross-validated out-of-sample prediction using pattern classification and sparsity-inducing regression. This concept paper discusses the implications of inferential justifications and algorithmic methodologies in common data analysis scenarios in neuroimaging. It is retraced how classical statistics and statistical learning originated from different historical contexts, build on different theoretical foundations, make different assumptions, and evaluate different outcome metrics to permit differently nuanced conclusions. The present considerations should help reduce current confusion between model-driven classical hypothesis testing and data-driven learning algorithms for investigating the brain with imaging techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 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 350 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 343 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 83 24%
Student > Master 52 15%
Researcher 51 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 61 17%
Unknown 65 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 67 19%
Psychology 54 15%
Computer Science 31 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 6%
Engineering 16 5%
Other 68 19%
Unknown 93 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 31 December 2020.
All research outputs
#774,561
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#323
of 11,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,157
of 333,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#9
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
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 333,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.