Hello,
The arguments about MCP seem to come and go with the years but never to disappear. Some time ago I co-wrote a paper "On the logic of hypothesis testing in functional imaging" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14730402?dopt=Abstract) which might be useful for the discussion
Best wishes
Fet
________________________________________
From: SPM (Statistical Parametric Mapping) [c] On Behalf Of Stephen J. Fromm [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 December 2009 16:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SPM] Fwd: Reporting ROI analyses and correcting for multiple comparisons
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:03:24 +0000, DRC SPM
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> PS If you found a reference suggesting that mulitple ROI analyses are
exempt
>> from the multiple comparison problem, I would be amused (in a dark way)
>
>Dear all,
>
>I'm not sure it will go so far as to justify multiple uncorrected ROI
>analyses (or to amuse Karl...) but arguments against multiple
>comparison correction have been made, including some highly cited
>papers in respected journals, like:
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/316/7139/1236
Though there was a fairly scathing reply at
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/316/7139/1236
>One counter-argument is that one only really needs to be concerned
>with the false positive (or discovery) rate in aspects of independent
>scientific interest, and that one shouldn't be penalised for combining
>two or much such investigations in a single paper.
I was unsure about this claim, but the relevant Wikipedia article cites an
authoritative book on multiple comparisons saying the same thing: "In
confirmatory studies (i.e., where one specifies a finite number of a priori
inferences), families of hypotheses are defined by which conclusions need to
be jointly accurate or by which hypotheses are similar in content/purpose. As
noted by Hochberg and Tamhane (1987), 'If these inferences are unrelated in
terms of their content or intended use (although they may be statistically
dependent), then they should be treated separately and not jointly' (p. 6)."
Very interesting post.
<snip>
|