IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0153865.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Heterogeneity in Retrieved Relations between the Personality Trait ‘Harm Avoidance’ and Gray Matter Volumes Due to Variations in the VBM and ROI Labeling Processing Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Van Schuerbeek
  • Chris Baeken
  • Johan De Mey

Abstract

Concerns are raising about the large variability in reported correlations between gray matter morphology and affective personality traits as ‘Harm Avoidance’ (HA). A recent review study (Mincic 2015) stipulated that this variability could come from methodological differences between studies. In order to achieve more robust results by standardizing the data processing procedure, as a first step, we repeatedly analyzed data from healthy females while changing the processing settings (voxel-based morphology (VBM) or region-of-interest (ROI) labeling, smoothing filter width, nuisance parameters included in the regression model, brain atlas and multiple comparisons correction method). The heterogeneity in the obtained results clearly illustrate the dependency of the study outcome to the opted analysis settings. Based on our results and the existing literature, we recommended the use of VBM over ROI labeling for whole brain analyses with a small or intermediate smoothing filter (5-8mm) and a model variable selection step included in the processing procedure. Additionally, it is recommended that ROI labeling should only be used in combination with a clear hypothesis and that authors are encouraged to report their results uncorrected for multiple comparisons as supplementary material to aid review studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Van Schuerbeek & Chris Baeken & Johan De Mey, 2016. "The Heterogeneity in Retrieved Relations between the Personality Trait ‘Harm Avoidance’ and Gray Matter Volumes Due to Variations in the VBM and ROI Labeling Processing Settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153865
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153865
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153865&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0153865?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P A Ioannidis, 2005. "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. John P A Ioannidis, 2014. "How to Make More Published Research True," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-6, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefan Stieglitz & Christian Meske & Björn Ross & Milad Mirbabaie, 2020. "Going Back in Time to Predict the Future - The Complex Role of the Data Collection Period in Social Media Analytics," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 395-409, April.
    2. Shareen A Iqbal & Joshua D Wallach & Muin J Khoury & Sheri D Schully & John P A Ioannidis, 2016. "Reproducible Research Practices and Transparency across the Biomedical Literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, January.
    3. Suresh H. Moolgavkar & Ellen T. Chang & Heather N. Watson & Edmund C. Lau, 2018. "An Assessment of the Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model for Epidemiologic Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 777-794, April.
    4. Ilya Plyusnin & Liisa Holm & Petri Törönen, 2019. "Novel comparison of evaluation metrics for gene ontology classifiers reveals drastic performance differences," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-27, November.
    5. Leonid Tiokhin & Minhua Yan & Thomas J. H. Morgan, 2021. "Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(7), pages 857-867, July.
    6. Denes Szucs & John P A Ioannidis, 2017. "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Anne-Laure Boulesteix, 2015. "Ten Simple Rules for Reducing Overoptimistic Reporting in Methodological Computational Research," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-6, April.
    8. Alexander Frankel & Maximilian Kasy, 2022. "Which Findings Should Be Published?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-38, February.
    9. Jyotirmoy Sarkar, 2018. "Will P†Value Triumph over Abuses and Attacks?," Biostatistics and Biometrics Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 7(4), pages 66-71, July.
    10. Stanley, T. D. & Doucouliagos, Chris, 2019. "Practical Significance, Meta-Analysis and the Credibility of Economics," IZA Discussion Papers 12458, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Karin Langenkamp & Bodo Rödel & Kerstin Taufenbach & Meike Weiland, 2018. "Open Access in Vocational Education and Training Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-12, July.
    12. Kevin J. Boyle & Mark Morrison & Darla Hatton MacDonald & Roderick Duncan & John Rose, 2016. "Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(3), pages 401-419, July.
    13. Jelte M Wicherts & Marjan Bakker & Dylan Molenaar, 2011. "Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-7, November.
    14. Valentine, Kathrene D & Buchanan, Erin Michelle & Scofield, John E. & Beauchamp, Marshall T., 2017. "Beyond p-values: Utilizing Multiple Estimates to Evaluate Evidence," OSF Preprints 9hp7y, Center for Open Science.
    15. Anton, Roman, 2014. "Sustainable Intrapreneurship - The GSI Concept and Strategy - Unfolding Competitive Advantage via Fair Entrepreneurship," MPRA Paper 69713, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Feb 2015.
    16. Dudek, Thomas & Brenøe, Anne Ardila & Feld, Jan & Rohrer, Julia, 2022. "No Evidence That Siblings' Gender Affects Personality across Nine Countries," IZA Discussion Papers 15137, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    18. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    19. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List, 2015. "Do Natural Field Experiments Afford Researchers More or Less Control than Laboratory Experiments? A Simple Model," NBER Working Papers 20877, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Rebeca Buzzo Feltrin & Maria Cristina Rodrigues Guilam & Manoel Barral-Netto & Nísia Trindade Lima & Milton Ozório Moraes, 2018. "For socially engaged science: The dynamics of knowledge production in the Fiocruz graduate program in the framework of the "Brazil Without Extreme Poverty Plan"," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0153865. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.