Cited by 154Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Assessing robustness against potential publication bias in activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analyses for fMRI

Open access
Acar, Freya, Seurinck, Ruth, Eickhoff, Simon B., Moerkerke, Beatrijs·2018·PLOS ONE

Abstract

The importance of integrating research findings is incontrovertible and procedures for coordinate-based meta-analysis (CBMA) such as Activation Likelihood Estimation (ALE) have become a popular approach to combine results of fMRI studies when only peaks of activation are reported. As meta-analytical findings help building cumulative knowledge and guide future research, not only the quality of such analyses but also the way conclusions are drawn is extremely important. Like classical meta-analyses, coordinate-based meta-analyses can be subject to different forms of publication bias which may impact results and invalidate findings. The file drawer problem refers to the problem where studies fail to get published because they do not obtain anticipated results (e.g. due to lack of statistical significance). To enable assessing the stability of meta-analytical results and determine their robustness against the potential presence of the file drawer problem, we present an algorithm to determine the number of noise studies that can be added to an existing ALE fMRI meta-analysis before spatial convergence of reported activation peaks over studies in specific regions is no longer statistically significant. While methods to gain insight into the validity and limitations of results exist for other coordinate-based meta-analysis toolboxes, such as Galbraith plots for Multilevel Kernel Density Analysis (MKDA) and funnel plots and egger tests for seed-based d mapping, this procedure is the first to assess robustness against potential publication bias for the ALE algorithm. The method assists in interpreting meta-analytical results with the appropriate caution by looking how stable results remain in the presence of unreported information that may differ systematically from the information that is included. At the same time, the procedure provides further insight into the number of studies that drive the meta-analytical results. We illustrate the procedure through an example and test the effect of several parameters through extensive simulations. Code to generate noise studies is made freely available which enables users to easily use the algorithm when interpreting their results.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0208177

Cites

45 of 45 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?

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

3 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [4]Sutton A, Jones D, Abrams K, Sheldon T, Song F. Methods for Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. John Wiley, London; 2000.
  2. [10]Radua J, Mataix-Cols D. Meta-analytic methods for neuroimaging data explained. Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders. 2012; 2(6): 1– 11. 22737993 PMC3384225
  3. [14]Costafreda SG. Parametric coordinate-based meta-analysis: Valid effect size meta-analysis of studies with differing statistical thresholds. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2012; 210: 291– 300. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2012.07.016 22878178 · DOI
  4. [15]Laird A, Lancaster J, Fox P. Brainmap: The social evolution of a functional neuroimaging database. Neuroinformatics. 2008: 65– 78. 15897617

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Acar, F., Seurinck, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Moerkerke, B.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
Corresponding author
Acar, Freya
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2018-11-30
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
e0208177
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2902120147
Cited by
154
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2017: 1
FWCI
7.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (G.0149.14)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH074457)
  • Horizon 2020 (7202070 (HBP SGA1))
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
publication bias, file drawer problem, activation likelihood estimation, coordinate-based meta-analysis, noise study, robustness analysis, spatial convergence
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Likelihood Functions, Publication Bias

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