- Jul 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2016 Jul 22, Christopher Tench commented:
Excellent. The issue with the bug was that there was no FWER control, so without the test you have performed there is no way to know if there are any truly positive results. But now you have confirmed your study. Thanks.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2016 Jun 24, Maddalena Boccia commented:
We thank Christopher Tench for his comment following which we have re-run the analysis with GingerALE 2.3.6 where bug in Cluster level inference has been fixed. We are sorry for this but the paper has been accepted before the recognition of the so-mentioned bug. Anyway, we are glad to announce that the results are not changed at all, demonstrating that there is no actual false positive results but just the risk of false positive results, which is, together with the risk of false negative results, the two unavoidable scientific risks.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY. -
On 2016 Jun 19, Christopher Tench commented:
The version of GingerALE used (2.3.5) has an implementation issue that produces false positive results. This was fixed at 2.3.6.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-
- Feb 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2016 Jun 19, Christopher Tench commented:
The version of GingerALE used (2.3.5) has an implementation issue that produces false positive results. This was fixed at 2.3.6.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-