Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Dimension constraints improve hypothesis testing for large-scale, graph-associated, brain-image data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that GraphMM, an empirical Bayes mixture method using graph-respecting partitions, controls the local false-discovery rate and increases power over graph-ignoring tests whenever true effects form connected subgraphs.

desk verdict GraphMM is a genuinely new graph-based testing method with strong empirical results, but the theoretical FDR guarantee in the paper does not formally cover the deployed local-subgraph implementation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07176 v2 pith:QFL2QKAC submitted 2019-08-20 stat.ME

TIen Vo , Vamsi Ithapu , Vikas Singh , Michael A. Newton This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME
keywords empiricalBayesgraph-respectingpartitionGraphMMimageanalysislocalfalse-discoveryratemixturemodelbrainimagingfalsediscoverycontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces GraphMM, an empirical Bayes mixture model that scores local false-discovery rates for large-scale testing when the measured variables sit on a known graph. Its central claim is that by constraining the group means to be constant within connected blocks of the graph, the method reduces the effective parameter dimension and thereby gains statistical power relative to procedures that test each vertex on its own. The paper demonstrates this on simulated data with block-structured signals and on structural MRI data comparing normal controls with people in late-stage mild cognitive impairment, where GraphMM reports many more significant voxels than conventional methods at the same nominal FDR. The broader message is that graph geometry can be a useful source of evidence, not just a correction for multiple testing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the graph-respecting partition, a partition of the vertex set in which every block induces a connected subgraph of the known graph. It encodes the dimension constraint that all vertices in a block share a common mean in each group, so a change between groups is a block-level shift; the set of such partitions is much smaller than all partitions, which makes exact enumeration feasible after localizing to small subgraphs. GraphMM computes each vertex's local false-discovery rate as a sum over these discrete states, using a joint predictive density that allows general covariance (inverse Wishart) and a Laplace approximation for integrating out the block means. The method thereby regularizes contrast estimates between neighboring units without forcing a product-partition factorization, and it estimates all hyperparameters empirically on the whole graph.

What would settle it

Simulate a two-group Gaussian dataset on a lattice where the non-null vertices are chosen independently with small probability so that no connected block structure exists, run GraphMM and a standard voxel-wise method at the same target FDR, and compare true positive rates; GraphMM's claimed power advantage would fail in this scenario, and any observed FDR inflation would contradict the paper's control claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

GraphMM treats the unknown arrangement of group differences as a latent graph-respecting partition: the vertex set is divided into connected blocks, every vertex within a block shares a common mean in each of the two groups, and a binary indicator per block records whether the means differ between groups. The local false-discovery rate for a vertex is then the posterior probability that its block's change indicator is zero, summed over all partitions consistent with local subgraphs. The method uses the marginal predictive density after integrating out covariance matrices and numerically integrating the block means, computing exact sums over all graph-respecting partitions of small local neighborhoods while estimating hyperparameters globally. In the simulation scenarios where true effects occupy connected blocks, GraphMM attains the target FDR and shows higher sensitivity than voxel-wise empirical Bayes procedures, adaptive shrinkage, and Benjamini-Hochberg; robustness checks show FDR control remains when the true signal is not block-structured. On brain MRI data, GraphMM detects additional gray-matter changes in regions consistent with the aging and Alzheimer's literature.

Load-bearing premise

The power gain relies on the assumption that true group differences are blockwise constant on connected graph pieces; if the signal is scattered across vertices or fragmented across disconnected components, the dimension reduction no longer helps, even though the paper's robustness simulations indicate FDR control is not lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 2D or 3D imaging data in which pathological changes affect coherent anatomical regions, GraphMM should generate longer discovery lists at a given FDR than voxel-by-voxel false-discovery-rate methods, as shown in the MRI analysis.
  • The method's graph-local computation keeps per-vertex cost manageable, so the same machinery can be applied to large brain volumes by processing slices or small neighborhoods.
  • FDR control appears robust to violations of the block assumption: the paper's simulations show target FDR is maintained even when partitions are not graph-respecting and effects are not uniform within blocks.
  • Applied to the mild cognitive impairment data, GraphMM flags regions such as precentral gyrus and middle frontal gyrus that conventional methods do not, suggesting additional candidate targets for Alzheimer's research.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the block-constant assumption is replaced by a soft penalty on between-vertex mean contrasts, the graph-respecting partition idea could be folded into a regularized regression or graph total-variation prior, yielding a general recipe for graph-structured multiple testing beyond Gaussian mixtures.
  • The local-neighborhood approximation suggests a natural scaling test: on graphs with low connectivity, enumeration is cheap and power gains should be largest, whereas on dense graphs the method should approach the behavior of graph-ignoring procedures because the partition space approaches all partitions.
  • A direct comparison with bandlimited graph-signal smoothing approaches might reveal that GraphMM's advantage is a prior on blockiness rather than on smoothness, which would help practitioners choose between methods based on expected signal geometry.
  • One could pre-screen data with a graph-aware homogeneity statistic to decide when the block assumption is credible; if blocks are absent, the user could fall back to univariate empirical Bayes without losing FDR control.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GraphMM, an empirical Bayes mixture model for large-scale hypothesis testing on graph-associated data. The model constrains the expected values of two groups to be constant on the blocks of a graph-respecting partition, and scores each vertex by a local false-discovery rate computed from a mixture over partitions and block-specific null indicators. Because exact posterior computation over all partitions is intractable, the method deploys GraphMM on a small local subgraph around each vertex, with hyperparameters estimated globally from the data. The paper evaluates GraphMM in simulations that mimic the ADNI-2 brain MRI data, comparing FDR and power with standard methods (BH, locfdr, q-value, ASH), and reports substantial power gains when non-null cases form connected subgraphs. It also applies the method to detect gray-matter differences between cognitively normal controls and late MCI subjects in the ADNI-2 cohort.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper offers a practical advance for graph-associated multiple testing in neuroimaging, with an open-source implementation and a thoughtful demonstration on a real dataset. The paper is genuinely careful in its simulation design: it varies block sizes, effect distributions, and violations of the model, and it includes permutation experiments. These constitute substantial evidence that the method has good operating characteristics in the studied regimes. The empirical power gains, if reproducible, would be of practical value for detecting subtle structural brain changes. Credit is also due for making the R package openly available, which aids reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.2.1, Eq. (2.2)] The FDR-control guarantee cited in Section 2.2.1 (Efron 2007; Newton et al. 2004) requires that the l_v values are posterior probabilities from a single joint model. However, the implementation computes each l_v from a different local subgraph: 'for each vertex v in the original graph we consider a small local subgraph in which v is one of the central vertices, and we simply deploy GraphMM on this local graph.' Consequently, no single probability model generates the collection of l_v, and the sum of these local probabilities is not a conditional expected number of false positives under any one model. This leaves the theoretical basis for thresholding l_v absent for the deployed algorithm. The permutation and simulation results provide empirical support, but they do not establish FDR control for the full ADNI application. Please either provide a rigorous analysis of the local-subgraph approximation (e.g., bound the discrepancy between local and full-graph posteriors under model (2.1)–(2.3)) or explicitly state that FDR control is an empirical property observed in simulations rather than a theoretical guarantee.
  2. [Section 2.2.2 and Supplementary Material Eq. (0.2)] The predictive density is computed via a Laplace approximation to integrate out means, and hyperparameters are estimated by empirical Bayes from the full graph. The paper does not provide error bounds or diagnostics for these approximations, and it does not assess how the plug-in estimation of hyperparameters affects the operating characteristics. Given that the local subgraph posteriors condition on these point estimates, a sensitivity analysis over hyperparameter values or a comparison against MCMC on a small graph would help confirm that the reported FDR control and power gains are not artifacts of the approximation.
  3. [Sections 2.2.1 and 3.1] The local subgraph size is a free parameter that is central to the method's computational feasibility and statistical behavior, yet the paper never states what local subgraph sizes were used in the simulations, the permutation experiments, or the ADNI analysis. The sensitivity advantage in Scenario 2 is partially attributed to matching block-size priors, but the role of the local window size is not discussed. A sensitivity analysis varying the local subgraph size would clarify how this tuning choice affects FDR control and power, and would be necessary for a reader to reproduce or apply the method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Page 3, first paragraph] The word 'probablity' appears twice; it should be 'probability'.
  2. [Section 2.2.2, paragraph 1] 'conjugage' should be 'conjugate'.
  3. [Table 1, row 6] The citation 'Weiner and Zilles (6 03)' appears to be a typo; the intended year is likely 2016.
  4. [Section 3.1, first paragraph] The caption of Figure 3 and the text refer to 'empirical FDR' and 'controlled FDR' but the distinction between these two quantities could be stated more explicitly in the main text; the definitions in Section 2.3 are given in prose and would benefit from display equations.
  5. [General] The term 'local subgraph' is used in several places but the construction (e.g., how many neighbors are included) is only described vaguely; a precise algorithmic description in the main text or a pointer to a supplementary algorithm box would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: GraphMM's FDR-control claim is validated by external simulations and permutation experiments, not by an input that is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from an explicit generative model: Eq. (2.1) constrains expected values through a graph-respecting partition, Eq. (2.2) defines the local false-discovery rate as a marginal posterior under that model, and Eq. (2.3) gives the predictive density used for computation. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction; the central FDR-control claim is tested empirically with known null status: the paper states 'We know the null status in each synthetic case, and so we also call the empirical FDR to be that rate counting latent null indicators.' Those simulations include settings where the model is violated (Fig. 5) and two permutation experiments (Fig. 6), so the validation is not equivalent to the model's assumptions. The theoretical FDR bound is cited to Efron (2007) and Newton et al. (2004); although Newton is a co-author, the same bound is a standard external result also attributed to Efron, and the paper's headline evidence is the simulation and permutation results, not that citation. The power gain is demonstrated by direct simulation and by the ADNI application, not by an equation that forces the conclusion. The local-subgraph approximation used for computation is a modeling approximation, but it is not presented as a derivation that reduces to its input; FDR behavior in that approximation is examined empirically. Thus no load-bearing claim reduces to its own input by construction, and there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on standard Bayesian machinery plus a strong structural assumption (graph-respecting partitions). No new particles or entities are introduced. The main free parameters are empirical-Bayes hyperparameters and the local subgraph size.

free parameters (4)
  • p0
    Prior probability that a block has no change; estimated from data via empirical Bayes. Used in P(Delta|Psi) = Bernoulli(p0) per block.
  • Mean hyperparameters (mu0, delta0, tau^2, sigma^2)
    Hyperparameters of Gaussian priors on block means and contrasts; estimated from data across the graph.
  • Covariance hyperparameters (df, A, B)
    Inverse Wishart prior parameters for the group covariance matrices; estimated empirically.
  • Local subgraph size
    The radius or size of the local subgraph processed for each vertex is a methodological choice not fit to data; it affects computational cost and approximation quality.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The data are multivariate normal within each group: X_m ~ N(mu_X, U) and Y_r ~ N(mu_Y, W) (Section 2.2.2).
    Gaussian sampling is assumed for the predictive densities; departures could affect lfdr calibration.
  • domain assumption There exists a graph-respecting partition Psi constraining the expected values so that means are constant within blocks and differ between blocks (Eq. 2.1).
    This is the core structural assumption that enables dimension reduction and power gains.
  • ad hoc to paper The prior over partitions is uniform over graph-respecting partitions, P(Psi) proportional to 1 (Section 2.2.1).
    A convenient uninformative prior; other priors (e.g., conditioned PPM) are mentioned but not used.
  • domain assumption Given the partition and change indicators, block means and contrasts have independent Gaussian priors with hyperparameters estimated by empirical Bayes (Section 2.2.2).
    Standard Bayesian shrinkage prior.
  • domain assumption The covariance matrices U and W are unconstrained and assigned inverse Wishart priors (Section 2.2.2).
    Avoids product-partition factorization, at the cost of full covariance estimation on local subgraphs.
  • standard math The Laplace approximation accurately integrates the free means to obtain the marginal predictive density f(X,Y|Delta,Psi) (Supplementary Material Eq. 0.2).
    A standard asymptotic approximation; accuracy on small subgraphs is not formally established in the main text.
  • ad hoc to paper The local subgraph lfdr for each vertex approximates the full-graph posterior lfdr (Section 2.2.1).
    Exact computation is limited to very small graphs; the paper uses local subgraphs without a formal error bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dimension constraints improve hypothesis testing for large-scale, graph-associated, brain-image data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFL2QKAC

@misc{pith2026190807176,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dimension constraints improve hypothesis testing for large-scale, graph-associated, brain-image data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFL2QKAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07176}
}
read the original abstract

For large-scale testing with graph-associated data, we present an empirical Bayes mixture technique to score local false discovery rates. Compared to empirical Bayes procedures that ignore the graph, the proposed method gains power in settings where non-null cases form connected subgraphs, and it does so by regularizing parameter contrasts between testing units. Simulations show that GraphMM controls the false discovery rate in a variety of settings. On magnetic resonance imaging data from a study of brain changes associated with the onset of Alzheimer's disease, GraphMM produces substantially greater yield than conventional large-scale testing procedures.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION article output.bibitem format.authors "author" output.check author format.key output output.year.check new.block format.title "title" output.check new.block crossref missing format.jour.vol output format.article.crossref output.nonnull format.pages output if new.block note output fin.entry FUNCTION b...

  2. [2]

    (2013, 07)

    Aminoff, Elissa, Kveraga, Kestutis and Bar, Moshe . (2013, 07). The role of the parahippocampal cortex in cognition. Trends in cognitive sciences\/ 17, 379--390

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Barry, Daniel and Hartigan, J. A. (1992, 03). Product partition models for change point problems. Ann. Statist.\/ 20(1), 260--279

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    Benjamini, Yoav and Hochberg, Yosef . (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)\/ 57(1), 289--300

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Shannon, Ozonoff, Sally, Krasny, Lori, Johnson, Michael, Lu, Jeffrey, Provencal, Sherri L., McMahon, William and Lainhart, Janet E

    Bigler, Erin D., Mortensen, Sherstin, Neeley, E. Shannon, Ozonoff, Sally, Krasny, Lori, Johnson, Michael, Lu, Jeffrey, Provencal, Sherri L., McMahon, William and Lainhart, Janet E. (2007). Superior temporal gyrus, language function, and autism. Developmental Neuropsychology\/ 31(2), 217--238. PMID: 17488217

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    and Frazier, Peter I

    Blei, David M. and Frazier, Peter I. (2011, November). Distance dependent C hinese restaurant processes. J. Mach. Learn. Res.\/ 12, 2461--2488

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    and Jordan, Michael I

    Blei, David M. and Jordan, Michael I. (2006, 03). Variational inference for D irichlet process mixtures. Bayesian Anal.\/ 1(1), 121--143

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    (2010, 05)

    Bourgon, Richard, Gentleman, Robert and Huber, Wolfgang . (2010, 05). Independent filtering increases detection power for high-throughput experiments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America\/ 107, 9546--51

    work page 2010

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Caron, Fran c ois and Doucet, Arnaud . (2009). Bayesian nonparametric models on decomposable graphs. In: Proceedings of the 22Nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems\/ , NIPS'09. USA: Curran Associates Inc. pp.\ 225--233

    2009

  2. [10]

    and Kovacevic, J

    Chen, S., Varma, R., Singh, A. and Kovacevic, J. (2016). Signal recovery on graphs: Fundamental limits of sampling strategies. IEEE Transactions on Signal and Information Processing over Networks\/ 2(4), 539--554

    2016

  3. [11]

    Cohen, N. J. and Eichenbaum, H. (1993). Memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal system\/ . MIT Press

    1993

  4. [12]

    Dahl, David B, Mo, Qianxing and Vannucci, Marina . (2008). Simultaneous inference for multiple testing and clustering via a D irichlet process mixture model. Statistical Modelling\/ 8(1), 23--39

    2008

  5. [13]

    Dahl, David B and Newton, Michael A . (2007). Multiple hypothesis testing by clustering treatment effects. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 102(478), 517--526

    2007

  6. [14]

    Do, Kim Anh , M \"u ller, Peter and Tang, Feng . (2005). A B ayesian mixture model for differential gene expression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C: Applied Statistics\/ 54(3), 627--644

    2005

  7. [15]

    (2007, 08)

    Efron, Bradley . (2007, 08). Size, power and false discovery rates. Ann. Statist.\/ 35(4), 1351--1377

    2007

  8. [16]

    Efron, Bradley . (2010). Large-Scale Inference: Empirical B ayes Methods for Estimation, Testing, and Prediction\/ , Institute of Mathematical Statistics Monographs. Cambridge University Press

    2010

  9. [17]

    and Knutsson, Hans

    Eklund, Anders, Nichols, Thomas E. and Knutsson, Hans . (2016). Cluster failure: Why fmri inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences\/ 113(28), 7900--7905

    2016

  10. [18]

    and Nichols, Thomas

    Genovese, Christopher R., Lazar, Nicole A. and Nichols, Thomas . (2002). Thresholding of statistical maps in functional neuroimaging using the false discovery rate. NeuroImage\/ 15(4), 870 -- 878

    2002

  11. [19]

    Gogolla, Nadine . (2017). The insular cortex. Current Biology\/ 27(12), R580 -- R586

    2017

  12. [20]

    and Owen, Adrian M

    Grahn, Jessica A., Parkinson, John A. and Owen, Adrian M. (2008). The cognitive functions of the caudate nucleus. Progress in Neurobiology\/ 86(3), 141 -- 155

    2008

  13. [21]

    Graziano, Michael S.A, Taylor, Charlotte S.R and Moore, Tirin . (2002). Complex movements evoked by microstimulation of precentral cortex. Neuron\/ 34(5), 841 -- 851

    2002

  14. [22]

    and Brugge, John F

    Greenlee, Jeremy D.W., Oya, Hiroyuki, Kawasaki, Hiroto, Volkov, Igor O., Severson III, Meryl A., Howard III, Matthew A. and Brugge, John F. (2007). Functional connections within the human inferior frontal gyrus. Journal of Comparative Neurology\/ 503(4), 550--559

    2007

  15. [23]

    and Kutas, Marta

    Groppe, David M., Urbach, Thomas P. and Kutas, Marta . (2011). Mass univariate analysis of event-related brain potentials/fields i: A critical tutorial review. Psychophysiology\/ 48(12), 1711--1725

    2011

  16. [24]

    Hartigan, J. A. (1990, 01). Partition models. Communications in Statistics-theory and Methods\/ 19, 2745--2756

    1990

  17. [25]

    (2010, September)

    Hartwigsen, Gesa, Baumgaertner, Annette, Price, Cathy J, Koehnke, Maria, Ulmer, Stephan and Siebner, Hartwig R . (2010, September). Phonological decisions require both the left and right supramarginal gyri. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States o...

    2010

  18. [26]

    Ithapu, Vamsi K, Singh, Vikas, Okonkwo, Ozioma C, Chappell, Richard J, Dowling, N Maritza, Johnson, Sterling C, Initiative, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging and others . (2015). Imaging-based enrichment criteria using deep learning algorithms for efficient clinical trials in m...

    2015

  19. [27]

    Japee, Shruti, Holiday, Kelsey, Satyshur, Maureen D., Mukai, Ikuko and Ungerleider, Leslie G. (2015). A role of right middle frontal gyrus in reorienting of attention: a case study. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience\/ 9, 23

    2015

  20. [28]

    Dahl, David and Vannucci, Marina

    Kim, Sinae, B. Dahl, David and Vannucci, Marina . (2009, 01). Spiked D irichlet process prior for B ayesian multiple hypothesis testing in random effects models. Bayesian Analysis\/ 4, 707--732

    2009

  21. [29]

    (2012, 12)

    Knafo, Shira . (2012, 12). Amygdala in A lzheimer's disease. In: Ferry, Barbar (editor), The Amygdala: A discrete multitasking manager\/ . BoD-Books on Demand

    2012

  22. [30]

    Lauritzen, S.L. (1996). Graphical Models\/ , Oxford Statistical Science Series. Clarendon Press

    1996

  23. [31]

    (2008, 06)

    Marchand, William, Lee, James, W Thatcher, John, W Hsu, Edward, Rashkin, Esther, Suchy, Yana, Chelune, Gordon, Starr, Jennifer and Steadman Barbera, Sharon . (2008, 06). Putamen coactivation during motor task execution. Neuroreport\/ 19, 957--60

    2008

  24. [32]

    Meadows, Mary-Ellen . (2011). Calcarine Cortex\/ . New York, NY: Springer New York, pp.\ 472--472

    2011

  25. [33]

    Moller, Christiane, Vrenken, Hugo, Jiskoot, Lize, Versteeg, Adriaan, Barkhof, Frederik, Scheltens, Philip and van der Flier, Wiesje M. (2013). Different patterns of gray matter atrophy in early- and late-onset A lzheimer’s disease. Neurobiology of Aging\/ 34(8), 2014 -- 2022

    2013

  26. [34]

    (2004, 02)

    Muller, Peter and Quintana, Fernando A. (2004, 02). Nonparametric B ayesian data analysis. Statistical Science\/ 19(1), 95--110

    2004

  27. [35]

    Newton, Michael A., Noueiry, Amine O, Sarkar, Deepayan and Ahlquist, Paul . (2004). Detecting differential gene expression with a semiparametric hierarchical mixture method. Biostatistics\/ 5 2, 155--76

    2004

  28. [36]

    Statistical nonparametric mapping - a toolbox for spm

    Nichols, Tom . Statistical nonparametric mapping - a toolbox for spm. http://nisox.org/Software/SnPM13/\/

  29. [37]

    Nichols, Thomas E. (2012). Multiple testing corrections, nonparametric methods, and random field theory. NeuroImage\/ 62(2), 811 -- 815. 20 YEARS OF fMRI

    2012

  30. [38]

    and McCarley, Robert W

    Onitsuka, Toshiaki, Shenton, Martha E., Salisbury, Dean F., Dickey, Chandlee C., Kasai, Kiyoto, Toner, Sarah K., Frumin, Melissa, Kikinis, Ron, Jolesz, Ferenc A. and McCarley, Robert W. (2004). Middle and inferior temporal gyrus gray matter volume abnormalities in chronic schi...

    2004

  31. [39]

    (2018, 05)

    Ortega, Antonio, Frossard, Pascal, Kovacevic, Jelena, Moura, Jose and Vandergheynst, Pierre . (2018, 05). Graph signal processing: Overview, challenges, and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE\/ 106, 808--828

    2018

  32. [40]

    and Quintana, Fernando A

    Page, Garritt L. and Quintana, Fernando A. (2016, 03). Spatial product partition models. Bayesian Anal.\/ 11(1), 265--298

    2016

  33. [41]

    Kiebel, S and E

    Penny, William, Friston, Karl, Ashburner, John, J. Kiebel, S and E. Nichols, T . (2007, 01). Statistical Parametric Mapping: The Analysis of Functional Brain Images\/

    2007

  34. [42]

    and Ezzyat, Youssef

    Plotzker, Alan, Olson, Ingrid R. and Ezzyat, Youssef . (2007, 03). The Enigmatic temporal pole: a review of findings on social and emotional processing . Brain\/ 130(7), 1718--1731

    2007

  35. [43]

    Stephens, Matthew . (2017). False discovery rates: a new deal. Biostatistics\/ 18(2), 275--294

    2017

  36. [44]

    Anne and Taber, Katherine H

    Stevens, Francis L., Hurley, Robin A., Taber, Katherine H., Hurley, Robin A., Hayman, L. Anne and Taber, Katherine H. (2011). Anterior cingulate cortex: Unique role in cognition and emotion. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences\/ 23(2), 121--125. PMID: 21677237

    2011

  37. [45]

    (2003, 12)

    Storey, John D. (2003, 12). The positive false discovery rate: a B ayesian interpretation and the q -value. Ann. Statist.\/ 31(6), 2013--2035

    2003

  38. [46]

    and Scott, James G

    Tansey, Wesley, Koyejo, Oluwasanmi, Poldrack, Russell A. and Scott, James G. (2018). False discovery rate smoothing. Journal of the American Statistical Association\/ 113(523), 1156--1171

    2018

  39. [47]

    and Joliot, M

    Tzourio-Mazoyer, N., Landeau, B., Papathanassiou, D., Crivello, F., Etard, O., Delcroix, N., Mazoyer, B. and Joliot, M. (2002). Automated anatomical labeling of activations in spm using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the mni mri single-subject brain. NeuroImage\/ 15(...

    2002

  40. [48]

    (2010, Aug)

    Vemuri, Prashanthi and Jack, Clifford R. (2010, Aug). Role of structural mri in A lzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\/ 2(4), 23

    2010

  41. [49]

    and Zilles, Karl

    Weiner, Kevin S. and Zilles, Karl . (2016-03). The anatomical and functional specialization of the fusiform gyrus. Neuropsychologia\/ 83, 48,62

    2016

  42. [50]

    Weiner, Michael W and Veitch, Dallas P . (2015). Introduction to special issue: overview of A lzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative. Alzheimer's & Dementia\/ 11(7), 730--733

    2015

  43. [51]

    Worsley, Keith J., Taylor, Jonathan E., Tomaiuolo, Francesco and Lerch, Jason . (2004). Unified univariate and multivariate random field theory. NeuroImage\/ 23, S189 -- S195. Mathematics in Brain Imaging

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.