The impact of sample size on the reproducibility of voxel-based lesion-deficit mappings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how sample size affects the reproducibility of findings from univariate voxel-based lesion-deficit analyses (e.g., voxel-based lesion-symptom mapping and voxel-based morphometry). Our effect of interest was the strength of the mapping between brain damage and speech articulation difficulties, as measured in terms of the proportion of variance explained. First, we identified a region of interest by searching on a voxel-by-voxel basis for brain areas where greater lesion load was associated with poorer speech articulation using a large sample of 360 right-handed English-speaking stroke survivors. We then randomly drew thousands of bootstrap samples from this data set that included either 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, or 360 patients. For each resample, we recorded effect size estimates and p values after conducting exactly the same lesion-deficit analysis within the previously identified region of interest and holding all procedures constant. The results show (1) how often small effect sizes in a heterogeneous population fail to be detected; (2) how effect size and its statistical significance varies with sample size; (3) how low-powered studies (due to small sample sizes) can greatly over-estimate as well as under-estimate effect sizes; and (4) how large sample sizes (N ≥ 90) can yield highly significant p values even when effect sizes are so small that they become trivial in practical terms. The implications of these findings for interpreting the results from univariate voxel-based lesion-deficit analyses are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.320 | 0.654 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".