Dear Doug,
thank you very much for your reply!Point c, is now ok.
Stefano
----Messaggio originale----
Da: gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Data: 4-ago-2013 20.34
A: <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Ogg: Re: [Freesurfer] Statistical concerns
On 8/1/13 7:56 AM, std...@virgilio.it
wrote:
Hi list,
I have some questions please.
1- I have carried out Monte Carlo Simulation
to assess the difference among three groups (23, 24 and 32
subjects). Main results were confirmed also by FDR, but I prefer
to shown the Monte Carlo becouse it better describes my thesis.
Recently I have submitted my paper but a
referee asked me "Why use cluster based Monte Carlo methods for
correction of multiple comparisons instead of the more
conventional vertex-wise FDR correction? I suspect the former is
much less conservative than the latter. It would be interesting
to know the results for FDR corrected thresholds (p<0.05),
and whether the present results would remain statistically
'active'.
Now, I'm looking literature and I'm noting
that several recent articles published on top journals used
Monte Carlo Simulation (Ehrlich et al., 2013 Schizophr Bull.;
Sasamoto et al., 2013 Schizophr Bull).
What do you think about it? How do you advise
to reply to the referee? I'd like to show Monte Carlo results.
This is a very surprising request by the reviewer. FDR is hardly
"conventional", and the brain imaging community has been using
clusterwise correction for 20 years. I'm not even sure what
"voxelwise" FDR is. Is that different than the one introduced by
Genovese in 2002?
As for how to respond to the reviewer, I'm not sure. You can
certainly make a case that doing the clusterwise correction is the
"industry standard". You can also site a paper out of the Friston
group from a few years back critisizing the Genovese-style FDR. Have
you applied the Genovese-style FDR that we offer in FS? If that
works out, then there is no need to fight with the reviewer.
2- I should do also correlation analysis. I'm
using QDEC as recommanded in guideliness
(http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/QdecGroupAnalysis_freeview).
In one group, after fsgd creation, I'm performing correlation
analysis between thickness and neuropsychiatric test scores (it
has been put in covariete windows-it should be dipendent
factor). I'm also putting some nuisance factors (they should be
dipendent factor in the regression analysis) to exclude the
their effect on data.
a- Is this procedure corrected?
b- Is corrected to talk regression analysis
in the text of my manuscript?
c- Is corrected whether I explain this
correlation analysis as reported in the description performed
above?
I'm confused. If you are using qdec, then you put your factors
(which are independent) in the qdec table, not in the FSGD file.
Otherwise the procedure looks correct and you can talk about
"regression analysis" in your ms. I don't understand (c).
doug
Thank you very much,
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
