Cited by 123Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Effect Size Estimation in Neuroimaging

Open access
Reddan, Marianne C., Lindquist, Martin A., Wager, Tor D.·2017·JAMA Psychiatry

Abstract

A central goal of translational neuroimaging is to establish robust links between brain measures and clinical outcomes.Success hinges on the development of brain biomarkers with large effect sizes.With large enough effects, a measure may be diagnostic of outcomes at the individual patient level.Surprisingly, however, standard brain-mapping analyses are not designed to estimate or optimize the effect sizes of brain-outcome relationships, and estimates are often biased.Here, we review these issues and how to estimate effect sizes in neuroimaging research.Effect size is a unit-free description of the strength of an effect, independent of sample size.Examples include Cohen d, Pearson r, and number needed to treat.1,2 For a given sample size (N), these can be converted to a t or z score (eg, Cohen d is t/[N] 1/2 ).But t, z, F, and P values are sample size dependent and relate to the presence of an effect (statistical significance), not its magnitude.By contrast, effect size describes a finding's practical significance, which determines its clinical importance.This is an important distinction because small effects can reach statistical significance given a large enough sample, even if they are unlikely to be of practical importance or replicable across diverse samples.3 Traditional neuroimaging studies are not designed to estimate effect sizes.A typical analysis tests for effects at each of 50 000 to 350 000 brain voxels.Post hoc effect sizes are selectively reported for a small subset of significant voxels.This practice creates bias, making effect size estimates larger than their true values.4 It is like a mediocre golfer who plays 5000 holes over the course of his career but only reports his 10 best holes.Bias is introduced because the best performance, selected post hoc, is not representative of expected performance.The Figure shows a simulation in which the true effect size in a set of voxels is d = 0.5.Once noise is added and a statistical test (t test) is conducted across 30 individuals, all significant voxels have an estimated effect size greater than the true effect.Why does this occur?Voxels tend to be significant if they show a true effect and have noise that favors the hypothesis.Correcting for multiple comparisons reduces false positives but actually increases this optimistic bias.6 As statistical thresholds become more stringent, an increasingly small subset of tests with favorable noise will reach significance, making the estimated post hoc effect size grow.In sum, conducting a large number of tests inher-

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.3356

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The search for imaging biomarkers for brain disorders is fraught with difficulty related to the complexity and distribution of cognitive processing, generalization from heterogeneous clinical samples, and small effect sizes with limited clinical utility.

    “The search for imaging biomarkers for brain disorders is fraught with difficulty related to the complexity and distribution of cognitive processing in the brain, the generalization of findings from heterogeneous clinical samples, and small effect sizes that have limited clinical utility194, 195.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reddan, M. C., Lindquist, M. A., & Wager, T. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Wager, Tor D.
Venue
JAMA Psychiatry
Published
2017-03-01
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
207
ISSN
2168-622X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2578898966
Cited by
123
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14
FWCI
8.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
effect size estimation, brain biomarkers, translational neuroimaging, multiple testing correction, voxel-based analysis, number needed to treat
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Brain, Humans, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Bias, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Translational Research, Biomedical, Neuroimaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review