| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
- Botvinik-Nezer, Rotem, et al.
(författare)
-
Variability in the analysis of a single neuroimaging dataset by many teams
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 582, s. 84-88
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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 hypotheses(1). 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 dataset(2-5). 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. The results obtained by seventy different teams analysing the same functional magnetic resonance imaging dataset show substantial variation, highlighting the influence of analytical choices and the importance of sharing workflows publicly and performing multiple analyses.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Flood, Victoria A., et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating modelled tropospheric columns of CH4, CO, and O3 in the Arctic using ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) measurements
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 24:2, s. 1079-1118
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study evaluates tropospheric columns of methane, carbon monoxide, and ozone in the Arctic simulated by 11 models. The Arctic is warming at nearly 4 times the global average rate, and with changing emissions in and near the region, it is important to understand Arctic atmospheric composition and how it is changing. Both measurements and modelling of air pollution in the Arctic are difficult, making model validation with local measurements valuable. Evaluations are performed using data from five high-latitude ground-based Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers in the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC). The models were selected as part of the 2021 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) report on short-lived climate forcers. This work augments the model-measurement comparisons presented in that report by including a new data source: column-integrated FTIR measurements, whose spatial and temporal footprint is more representative of the free troposphere than in situ and satellite measurements. Mixing ratios of trace gases are modelled at 3-hourly intervals by CESM, CMAM, DEHM, EMEP MSC-W, GEM-MACH, GEOS-Chem, MATCH, MATCH-SALSA, MRI-ESM2, UKESM1, and WRF-Chem for the years 2008, 2009, 2014, and 2015. The comparisons focus on the troposphere (0-7km partial columns) at Eureka, Canada; Thule, Greenland; Ny Ålesund, Norway; Kiruna, Sweden; and Harestua, Norway. Overall, the models are biased low in the tropospheric column, on average by -9.7% for CH4, -21% for CO, and -18% for O3. Results for CH4 are relatively consistent across the 4 years, whereas CO has a maximum negative bias in the spring and minimum in the summer and O3 has a maximum difference centered around the summer. The average differences for the models are within the FTIR uncertainties for approximately 15% of the model-location comparisons.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
