Slashdot Mirror
MRI Software Bugs Could Upend Years Of Research (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader shares a report on The Register: A whole pile of "this is how your brain looks like" MRI-based science has been invalidated because someone finally got around to checking the data. The problem is simple: to get from a high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging scan of the brain to a scientific conclusion, the brain is divided into tiny "voxels". Software, rather than humans, then scans the voxels looking for clusters. When you see a claim that "scientists know when you're about to move an arm: these images prove it", they're interpreting what they're told by the statistical software. Now, boffins from Sweden and the UK have cast doubt on the quality of the science, because of problems with the statistical software: it produces way too many false positives. In this paper at PNAS, they write: "the most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%. These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results."
A friend of mine as worked in the social sciences (cue /. laughter, but bear with me) and they were forced by the university to use a closed source statistical package for all their data processing. So anyway, she got some really dubious results and she preferred to do her own maths, so she did, and lo! completely different results. That was the start of a research project which concluded that the closed source package contained a rounding error that basically filtered all minorities out of the data set, which is kind of sad if you're doing research on minorities.
People trust their software too much, are too lazy to do their own maths, don't really want to have got anything to do with data processing even though that's their job, and universities force bad software on their employees. This is an institutional problem that goes way beyond MRI research.