Well, I believe there is a problem in principle here. FDR deals with multiple comparisons across the surface (or brain volume), but how do you deal with a series of such analyses? Of course, if you use a different method of correction you avoid this problem but that's not the point.
LMR Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:03:46 -0300 Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] FDR correction From: p...@netfilter.com.br To: lari...@gmail.com CC: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Some links that may be helpful: http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/QdecMultipleComparisons http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/GroupAnalysishttp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/MultipleComparisons Hope it helps. PPJ----------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Paulo de M. Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:38, Lars M. Rimol <lari...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I have done an analysis involving three groups, so there are three pairwise comparisons across two hemispheres = 6 p-maps. I want to adjust for multiple comparisons (across the vertices), so I use FDR. But since FDR determines the threshold basd on the actual p-values, I get 6 different tresholds: comparison 1: lh and rh, 0.016 and 0.028 (I can choose .01) comparison 2: lh and rh, 0.01 and 0.001 (I can choose.001) comparison 3 lh and rh, 0.001 and 0.0001 (I can choose .0001) There are lots of significant vertices in comparison 1 and nothing significant, after correction, in comparison 3. Is there anything wrong with using different tresholds here, and concluding that in comparison 1 there were extensive differences between the groups, whereas in comparison 3 there were none? I'm not sure if this is a problem, but I'm afraid some reviewers might have an issue with it. Across the hemispheres, I can choose a conservative threshold which covers both hemispheres, i.e. lower than both the FDR-adjusted treshold for lh and rh. But between the comparisons the tresholds differ even more, by a factor of 10 and 100. And if I choose the most conservative of all the adjusted thresholds, I'm afraid that I'll make a type II error in comparison 1. >From what I understand, the adjusted threshold for comparison 3 is more >conservative because of the actual empirical data (the distribution of >p-values), so that's an empirical argument for using a more conservative >threshold there. And: What if I pooled all thre p-maps (sig.mgh) and did an FDR on the whole thing, would that be a better approach? And does Freesurfer use the Benjamini algorithm, and if you do, can I use Tom Nichols' matlab function for FDR (http://www.sph.umich.edu/~nichols/FDR/FDR.m) for pooling all three p-maps? Thank you! -- yours, LMR _______________________________________________ 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
