Closed adelavega closed 2 years ago
Notes:
nistats has not been run on nndb so the results should be identical
using nistats by itself does not have strong meta-analytic maps since estimator has not always been tracked (but I could assume anything without an estimator was run using nistats).
afni:
nistats
nistats including "None" estimators (assuming they are nistats)
using the first available collection for every study (including nndb
)
first available collections without nndb
the first available collection results with and without nndb are perfectly correlated, but differ in magnitude, where not including nndb increases magnitude.
Looks most likely that the issue is with fitlins. https://github.com/poldracklab/fitlins/pull/318
Running a test model to see if the patch fixes the issue. Analysis ID: MzQpZ
If it seems to help, then run on all non-NNDB datasets, and compare to the map above. If so, will delete old maps, with afni since they are incorrect.
problem is neurostuff/NiMARE/issues/579
summary: afni meta-anaysis maps w/ all tasks look very weak, especially for RMS which should be solid and looks good at single dataset level (t-stats)
two possibilities: 1) nndb is on a different scale from other datasets, due to preprocessing differences (primarily) but also predictor scale differences (q: should we re-scale?)