Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams

Rotem Botvinik-Nezer,Felix Holzmeister,Colin F Camerer,Anna Dreber,Juergen Huber,Magnus Johannesson,Michael Kirchler,Roni Iwanir,Jeanette A Mumford,R Alison Adcock,Paolo Avesani,Blazej M Baczkowski,Aahana Bajracharya,Leah Bakst,Sheryl Ball,Marco Barilari,Nadège Bault,Derek Beaton,Julia Beitner,Roland G Benoit,Ruud M W J Berkers,Jamil P Bhanji,Bharat B Biswal,Sebastian Bobadilla-Suarez,Tiago Bortolini,Katherine L Bottenhorn,Alexander Bowring,Senne Braem,Hayley R Brooks,Emily G Brudner,Cristian B Calderon,Julia A Camilleri,Jaime J Castrellon,Luca Cecchetti,Edna C Cieslik,Zachary J Cole,Olivier Collignon,Robert W Cox,William A Cunningham,Stefan Czoschke,Kamalaker Dadi,Charles P Davis,Alberto De Luca,Mauricio R Delgado,Lysia Demetriou,Jeffrey B Dennison,Xin Di,Erin W Dickie,Ekaterina Dobryakova,Claire L Donnat,Juergen Dukart,Niall W Duncan,Joke Durnez,Amr Eed,Simon B Eickhoff,Andrew Erhart,Laura Fontanesi,G Matthew Fricke,Shiguang Fu,Adriana Galván,Remi Gau,Sarah Genon,Tristan Glatard,Enrico Glerean,Jelle J Goeman,Sergej A E Golowin,Carlos González-García,Krzysztof J Gorgolewski,Cheryl L Grady,Mikella A Green,João F Guassi Moreira,Olivia Guest,Shabnam Hakimi,J Paul Hamilton,Roeland Hancock,Giacomo Handjaras,Bronson B Harry,Colin Hawco,Peer Herholz,Gabrielle Herman,Stephan Heunis,Felix Hoffstaedter,Jeremy Hogeveen,Susan Holmes,Chuan-Peng Hu,Scott A Huettel,Matthew E Hughes,Vittorio Iacovella,Alexandru D Iordan,Peder M Isager,Ayse I Isik,Andrew Jahn,Matthew R Johnson,Tom Johnstone,Michael J E Joseph,Anthony C Juliano,Joseph W Kable,Michalis Kassinopoulos,Cemal Koba,Xiang-Zhen Kong,Timothy R Koscik,Nuri Erkut Kucukboyaci,Brice A Kuhl,Sebastian Kupek,Angela R Laird,Claus Lamm,Robert Langner,Nina Lauharatanahirun,Hongmi Lee,Sangil Lee,Alexander Leemans,Andrea Leo,Elise Lesage,Flora Li,Monica Y C Li,Phui Cheng Lim,Evan N Lintz,Schuyler W Liphardt,Annabel B Losecaat Vermeer,Bradley C Love,Michael L Mack,Norberto Malpica,Theo Marins,Camille Maumet,Kelsey McDonald,Joseph T McGuire,Helena Melero,Adriana S Méndez Leal,Benjamin Meyer,Kristin N Meyer,Glad Mihai,Georgios D Mitsis,Jorge Moll,Dylan M Nielson,Gustav Nilsonne,Michael P Notter,Emanuele Olivetti,Adrian I Onicas,Paolo Papale,Kaustubh R Patil,Jonathan E Peelle,Alexandre Pérez,Doris Pischedda,Jean-Baptiste Poline,Yanina Prystauka,Shruti Ray,Patricia A Reuter-Lorenz,Richard C Reynolds,Emiliano Ricciardi,Jenny R Rieck,Anais M Rodriguez-Thompson,Anthony Romyn,Taylor Salo,Gregory R Samanez-Larkin,Emilio Sanz-Morales,Margaret L Schlichting,Douglas H Schultz,Qiang Shen,Margaret A Sheridan,Jennifer A Silvers,Kenny Skagerlund,Alec Smith,David V Smith,Peter Sokol-Hessner,Simon R Steinkamp,Sarah M Tashjian,Bertrand Thirion,John N Thorp,Gustav Tinghög,Loreen Tisdall,Steven H Tompson,Claudio Toro-Serey,Juan Jesus Torre Tresols,Leonardo Tozzi,Vuong Truong,Luca Turella,Anna E van 't Veer,Tom Verguts,Jean M Vettel,Sagana Vijayarajah,Khoi Vo,Matthew B Wall,Wouter D Weeda,Susanne Weis,David J White,David Wisniewski,Alba Xifra-Porxas,Emily A Yearling,Sangsuk Yoon,Rui Yuan,Kenneth S L Yuen,Lei Zhang,Xu Zhang,Joshua E Zosky,Thomas E Nichols,Russell A Poldrack,Tom Schonberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2314-9

IF: 64.8

Nature

Abstract:Data analysis workflows in many scientific domains have become increasingly complex and flexible. Here we assess the effect of this flexibility on the results of functional magnetic resonance imaging by asking 70 independent teams to analyse the same dataset, testing the same 9 ex-ante hypotheses1. The flexibility of analytical approaches is exemplified by the fact that no two teams chose identical workflows to analyse the data. This flexibility resulted in sizeable variation in the results of hypothesis tests, even for teams whose statistical maps were highly correlated at intermediate stages of the analysis pipeline. Variation in reported results was related to several aspects of analysis methodology. Notably, a meta-analytical approach that aggregated information across teams yielded a significant consensus in activated regions. Furthermore, prediction markets of researchers in the field revealed an overestimation of the likelihood of significant findings, even by researchers with direct knowledge of the dataset2-5. Our findings show that analytical flexibility can have substantial effects on scientific conclusions, and identify factors that may be related to variability in the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging. The results emphasize the importance of validating and sharing complex analysis workflows, and demonstrate the need for performing and reporting multiple analyses of the same data. Potential approaches that could be used to mitigate issues related to analytical variability are discussed.