Study questions the validity of some 40,000 #fMRI studies https://t.co/YlEASaW8sX #neuroimaging #imaging #brain #MRI https://t.co/gGGvHFJbSC
#IRMf : les packages logiciels peuvent entraîner jusqu'à 70% de faux-positifs https://t.co/YlEASaW8sX #imagerie #IRM https://t.co/oCScD0snU3
Brain research from 15 years really be Wrong? https://t.co/JUrcyhVHmS
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/AnuLabHD8Z
[Publication] fMRI inferences inflated false-positive rates: https://t.co/Fb8xDwiIqw a.k.a. software problems an issue with brain research
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/DjeZLR19Lk
RT @UBNursing: Study: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/bRTsiTrmAu
@HealthImaging any thoughts in light of recently published fMRI pitfalls? https://t.co/C84DnyjptC
Umm "...false-positive rates of up to 70%. These results question the validity of 40,000+ fMRI studies" @PNASNews https://t.co/l0SE6BI6QK
Another blow on scientific integrity? Cluster f... https://t.co/pv2JjZ9IEC
Oopsi! https://t.co/Xk1hFV5Cwc
RT @JSyversen: Here's @TheRegister summarizing the problem: https://t.co/Xam5iX5ELZ Original paper on false positives: https://t.co/drpiEbg…
Here's @TheRegister summarizing the problem: https://t.co/Xam5iX5ELZ Original paper on false positives: https://t.co/drpiEbggeH
Study: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/bRTsiTrmAu
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates #fmriDebate... https://t.co/GTUY1JuzTH
Éste artículo pone a temblar varios cimientos de las neurociencias cognitivas... Grave la cosa ala https://t.co/6Cjje2nVkj
RT @Ekkekakis: Allegedly, false positives up to 70% due to fMRI software programs, thousands of studies possibly in question. https://t.co/…
Ai: high false positive rates with common fMRI packages. https://t.co/qmXGcl3S6i Validation of methods and sharing of data seems warranted.
RT @sciencequiche: Woah - am I reading this PNAS neuro abstract right? #Reproducibility https://t.co/0DtzGObXmx https://t.co/5jPBkGI4BC
'The most common software packages for fMRI analysis can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%': https://t.co/zFXb5H1zrG
RT @russpoldrack: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/69oIl7wFHN by @te…
Todas las publicaciones "científicas" hechas mediante fMRI podrían ser invalidas... BIBA! :( https://t.co/924AB9GWgD
RT @xurxomar: Por qué hay que desconfiar, y mucho, de las imágenes de resonancia magnética: https://t.co/G4NiiWSQl5 Vía @castoriva
RT @PerdiendoMasa: Un bug en un software para MRI podría invalidar 40000 estudios de neurociencia https://t.co/Lsj0l9Obpa https://t.co/uVyT…
Ouch ... common fMRI software dramatically inflates false positives. https://t.co/r7LQ0eGcrU https://t.co/8WQTkiX2OZ
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/eaeTNkAJun
RT @IgnacioEnriquez: los estudios de los últimos 15 años con resonancia magnética están mal? Xataka: https://t.co/rfGlbS5uTi Pnas: https://…
los estudios de los últimos 15 años con resonancia magnética están mal? Xataka: https://t.co/rfGlbS5uTi Pnas: https://t.co/jrjAYItN4p
the most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70% https://t.co/dwRTFTGZCe
Por qué hay que desconfiar, y mucho, de las imágenes de resonancia magnética: https://t.co/G4NiiWSQl5 Vía @castoriva
RT @ten_photos: "Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates" now out https://t.co/MJsk55oPa…
Uh-oh. Will @RetractionWatch handle 40,000 submissions? fMRI software found to result in 70% false + results: https://t.co/JdMKOqHs5P
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/hunRup0HpN
Un bug en un software para MRI podría invalidar 40000 estudios de neurociencia https://t.co/Lsj0l9Obpa https://t.co/uVyTU1QrbN
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates - https://t.co/NcHybBnHLc
Проблеми з неправомірним застосуванням традиційних (параметричних) статистичних методів, якими у багатьох... https://t.co/spygJphCh7
Cluster failure: Why #fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates #methods https://t.co/a1l5v4zlSZ
RT @sjcockell: 2/ is anyone really surprised by the latest fMRI snafu? Fast and loose stats used to sell 'story' https://t.co/5bdlFVZzyS
RT @omzn: fMRIのソフトウェアに15年以上にわたって存在したバグを発見した論文.有意水準5%でfalse-positiveとなるところなのに,最大70%ものfalse-positiveが出たので発見された.40000件の研究に影響とか. https://t.co/V…
fMRIのソフトウェアに15年以上にわたって存在したバグを発見した論文.有意水準5%でfalse-positiveとなるところなのに,最大70%ものfalse-positiveが出たので発見された.40000件の研究に影響とか. https://t.co/VKhDD6jhjx
RT @MonicaCrugel: False-positive rates of up to 70% :/ https://t.co/1lBAbtpdzH
RT @KirkegaardEmil: If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
RT @neuro_data: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates | uh-oh for fMRI!? https://t.co/…
RT @neuro_data: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates | uh-oh for fMRI!? https://t.co/…
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates | uh-oh for fMRI!? https://t.co/9oaa7wf8Zv
81/ #366papers: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/KhPNhThdSy
#fMRI #neuroscience #psychology #research "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies" https://t.co/f74w7Ka1NG
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
RT @katecrawford: Here's a link to the original journal article: "These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies." https:/…
False-positive rates of up to 70% :/ https://t.co/1lBAbtpdzH
It's not feasible to redo 40,000 fMRI studies; lamentable archiving & data-sharing mean most could not be reanalyzed https://t.co/wLiJsQkzLH
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/tvKP8khO2W, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be actually be influenced. https://t.…
RT @AejazAssistech: Some fMRI studies may not really be as promising as they seem: https://t.co/jVhWqNlnbs
A bug in fMRI software could invalidate 15 years of brain research https://t.co/1M5s1PCKFD
RT @SamuelRecht: These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies (new in PNAS): https://t.co/TsHHVa3w8N
RT @neuroconscience: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/4H38NuLThB by…
RT @MatthewGombolay: Concerning paper on why the results of 40,000 fMRI studies could have a 70% false positive rate. #ML #AI #Medicine htt…
Whoa ! Cluster FxxK in fMRI - https://t.co/fBIdetEi2C
Well then... some folks are going back to the drawing board.... https://t.co/UT7sGfsguR
Concerning paper on why the results of 40,000 fMRI studies could have a 70% false positive rate. #ML #AI #Medicine https://t.co/pJwHVkxrBT
fMRIdon'tbelieveit. False positives and functional resonance brain imaging: https://t.co/iA4cEOtAer
RT @robjcoops: STUDY of false positives in fMRI analysis has serious implications if correct! #OHBM2016 #FNIRS @_lordofthelight https://t.c…
RT @JohnBorghi: Psychology has a meta-analysis problem: https://t.co/2o1WZrsfVQ fMRI has a cluster problem: https://t.co/AgF03A4Ni0 https:…
1000s of fMRI studies in doubt after false-positive rates of up to 70% seen with common fMRI analysis software! https://t.co/WICLmJwP3P
Ouch. You can almost hear all the fMRI researchers scrabbling to check their stats https://t.co/fwWKSfmYLA
Bug in fMRI software could call 15 years of publications (40,000) into question...!!! https://t.co/vowYuG4Xom
Inference in #fMRI studies very questionable! Shocking but expected given low level of statistics training. https://t.co/50uSoANTWB
Some fMRI studies may not really be as promising as they seem: https://t.co/jVhWqNlnbs
Cluster failure:Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates | https://t.co/No8N0u1u9z | @PNASNews #psychology
À cause d’un bug, la plupart des études d’IRM fonctionnelles seraient donc à jeter à la poubelle ? https://t.co/Hq2wJSmtkV
RT @KirkegaardEmil: If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
RT @KirkegaardEmil: If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
Paper suggests 15 years of brain-activity research based on MRI scans may be invalid due to software bugs https://t.co/4zJJe53bIj
These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies (new in PNAS): https://t.co/TsHHVa3w8N
@huBoyaci konudan epey uzaklaşmış olsam da... bu da çalışmanın esas kaynağı: https://t.co/ifXc27gKcE
big issue for neuroscience: fMRI software bug leaves years of research in-doubt https://t.co/SU9RyEAq8z #badscience
RT @JuanUgaldeC: Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/oOnpk3a4DR
Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates https://t.co/oOnpk3a4DR
Are some fMRI studies at risk: https://t.co/bT7bqwhqa7
RT @KirkegaardEmil: If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
RT @oleseanp: This is what happens when you only fund science studying “novel” things rather than replicative studies https://t.co/48pzJsl8…
#ClusterFailure: Why #fMRI inferences for #SpatialExtent have inflated #FalsePositive rates https://t.co/yNNlsL23zu | via @PNASNews
RT @KirkegaardEmil: If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
RT @KirkegaardEmil: If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/tvKP8khO2W, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be actually be influenced. https://t.…
Potentially BIG news on #fMRI front @PNASNews https://t.co/ODJsdItfLq Reminded of festival presentation I gave once, #YouAreNotYourBrainScan
RT @openmicroscopy: #Opendata matters: fMRI study highlights "lamentable archiving and data-sharing practices" https://t.co/MqFL5V5mku @PNA…
RT @Ekkekakis: Allegedly, false positives up to 70% due to fMRI software programs, thousands of studies possibly in question. https://t.co/…
If true, it must be the largest failure of soft science to date. https://t.co/Ssy0ok9buc https://t.co/7GdRRNfa2y
https://t.co/WPN56FzoRw oh dear! A lot of fMRI research in doubt. @heather_berlin h/t @pathogenomenick
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/HhH5zunEHq, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be... https://t.co/WUg6RX5AlT
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/HhH5zunEHq, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be influenced. https://t.co/qi67c6LoYv
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/pUGGmxd57m, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be influenced. https://t.co/7IdaVhw46S
Whoops? https://t.co/vs6kDN11SZ
It looks like we will be facing a lot of retractions due to non-validated statistics-based algorithms https://t.co/dAYbYrIxPI
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/tvKP8khO2W, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be actually be influenced. https://t.…
RT @fMRI_today: Regarding https://t.co/tvKP8khO2W, Tom Nichol’s clarification on how many studies may be actually be influenced. https://t.…
worth reading! https://t.co/pGYVEqX02L
this seems alarming - 'the most common software for fMRI analysis can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%' https://t.co/xZwMXjJjPx