|
|
|
|
|
|
by jampekka
721 days ago
|
|
|
Wow, thanks for the awesome work! It's my favorite neuroimaging study, and we have a print of the poster on our lab's wall. How do you find the rigor of neuroimaging analyses have developed since that paper? I don't follow it much, but I've seen some quite wild looking stuff being published (e.g. predicting smallish datasets by feeding voxel activations into a huge ANN). Are my concerns about a new era of overfitting realistic? |
|
|
That's amazing - you made my day with that statement.
I left neuroscience for the software world back in 2012, so I don't have a lot of data points since then. I know between 2009 and 2012 the field went from ~50% of papers doing the right statistical corrections to about ~90%, which is a huge step in the right direction. I hope those numbers are even better today.
The expense of MRI time means that studies include far fewer subjects than they might want/need. My opinion is that there are still significant challenges that go beyond correction for multiple comparisons, like data peeking and low-power experimental designs. I think that we should move to a mindset where we need replication and convergent evidence for major claims. Not a single study with 18 college freshman participants.