Cited by 146Functional Brain Connectivity StudiesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyAdvanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications

False positives in neuroimaging genetics using voxel-based morphometry data

Open access
Silver, Matt, Montana, Giovanni, Nichols, Thomas E.·2011·NeuroImage

Abstract

Voxel-wise statistical inference is commonly used to identify significant experimental effects or group differences in both functional and structural studies of the living brain. Tests based on the size of spatially extended clusters of contiguous suprathreshold voxels are also widely used due to their typically increased statistical power. In "imaging genetics", such tests are used to identify regions of the brain that are associated with genetic variation. However, concerns have been raised about the adequate control of rejection rates in studies of this type. A previous study tested the effect of a set of 'null' SNPs on brain structure and function, and found that false positive rates were well-controlled. However, no similar analysis of false positive rates in an imaging genetic study using cluster size inference has yet been undertaken. We measured false positive rates in an investigation of the effect of 700 pre-selected null SNPs on grey matter volume using voxel-based morphometry (VBM). As VBM data exhibit spatially-varying smoothness, we used both non-stationary and stationary cluster size tests in our analysis. Image and genotype data on 181 subjects with mild cognitive impairment were obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). At a nominal significance level of 5%, false positive rates were found to be well-controlled (3.9-5.6%), using a relatively high cluster-forming threshold, α(c)=0.001, on images smoothed with a 12 mm Gaussian kernel. Tests were however anticonservative at lower cluster-forming thresholds (α(c)=0.01, 0.05), and for images smoothed using a 6mm Gaussian kernel. Here false positive rates ranged from 9.8 to 67.6%. In a further analysis, false positive rates using simulated data were observed to be well-controlled across a wide range of conditions. While motivated by imaging genetics, our findings apply to any VBM study, and suggest that parametric cluster size inference should only be used with high cluster-forming thresholds and smoothness. We would advocate the use of nonparametric methods in other cases.

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 · 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.08.049

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • In whole-brain analysis, reporting was limited to clusters that passed both the nonparametric and parametric procedures.

    “For whole-brain analysis, only clusters that survived following both the nonparametric and parametric statistical procedures are reported (61).”

    From Epigenetic modification of <i>OXT</i> and human sociability (2016) · cites this paper as [61]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Worsley K.J. Marrett S. Neelin P. Evans A.C. Searching scale space for activation in PET images Hum. Brain Mapp. 4 1 1996 74 90 20408187

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silver, M., Montana, G., & Nichols, T. E.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Nichols, Thomas E.
Venue
NeuroImage
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
54
Issue
2
Pages
992-1000
ISSN
1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104524472
Cited by
146
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • NeuroImage (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institutes of Health (U01 AG024904, P30 AG010129, K01 AG030514)
  • National Institute on Aging
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • Dana Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advanced Neuroimaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
false positive rate, imaging genetics, voxel-based morphometry, gray matter volume, mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer's disease, spatial smoothing, nonparametric statistics
MeSH terms
Brain, Cognition Disorders, False Positive Reactions, Genotype, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide

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