Paper detail

A statistical test to identify differences in clustering structures

Statistical inference on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data is an important task in brain imaging. One major hypothesis is that the presence or not of a psychiatric disorder can be explained by the differential clustering of neurons in the brain. In view of this fact, it is clearly of interest to address the question of whether the properties of the clusters have changed between groups of patients and controls. The normal method of approaching group differences in brain imaging is to carry out a voxel-wise univariate analysis for a difference between the mean group responses using an appropriate test (e.g. a t-test) and to assemble the resulting "significantly different voxels" into clusters, testing again at cluster level. In this approach of course, the primary voxel-level test is blind to any cluster structure. Direct assessments of differences between groups (or reproducibility within groups) at the cluster level have been rare in brain imaging. For this reason, we introduce a novel statistical test called ANOCVA - ANalysis Of Cluster structure Variability, which statistically tests whether two or more populations are equally clustered using specific features. The proposed method allows us to compare the clustering structure of multiple groups simultaneously, and also to identify features that contribute to the differential clustering. We illustrate the performance of ANOCVA through simulations and an application to an fMRI data set composed of children with ADHD and controls. Results show that there are several differences in the brain's clustering structure between them, corroborating the hypothesis in the literature. Furthermore, we identified some brain regions previously not described, generating new hypothesis to be tested empirically.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.