2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2021.10.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beyond t test and ANOVA: applications of mixed-effects models for more rigorous statistical analysis in neuroscience research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
167
0
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 232 publications
(168 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
0
167
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…For cases in which the same brain slice was stimulated multiple times, and other repeated measures, linear mixed modeling (LMM) was used to examine the effects of genotype or drug treatment. This approach estimates the effect size of each factor while accounting for intra- and inter-animal variability (Aarts et al, 2014 ; Boisgontier and Cheval, 2016 ; Yu et al, 2021 ) and is gaining wide acceptance (Lau et al, 2017 ; Huang et al, 2018 ; Hanson et al, 2019 ; Koenig et al, 2019 ; Grieco et al, 2020 ; Kurucu et al, 2021 ). LMMs were fitted with random intercepts to assess for the correlation between repeated measurements on the same mouse, and experiment-specific effects were analyzed for statistical significance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For cases in which the same brain slice was stimulated multiple times, and other repeated measures, linear mixed modeling (LMM) was used to examine the effects of genotype or drug treatment. This approach estimates the effect size of each factor while accounting for intra- and inter-animal variability (Aarts et al, 2014 ; Boisgontier and Cheval, 2016 ; Yu et al, 2021 ) and is gaining wide acceptance (Lau et al, 2017 ; Huang et al, 2018 ; Hanson et al, 2019 ; Koenig et al, 2019 ; Grieco et al, 2020 ; Kurucu et al, 2021 ). LMMs were fitted with random intercepts to assess for the correlation between repeated measurements on the same mouse, and experiment-specific effects were analyzed for statistical significance.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The statistical analysis of most types of electrophysiological datasets is complicated by both the repeated nature as well as the hierarchical relationships between measurements. Traditional approaches to analyze these datasets typically rely on the implicit assumption that individual measurements are statistically independent [Aarts et al, 2014; Yu et al, 2022]. Our demonstration that the interevent interval and amplitude of EPSCs is clustered around the mean of individual neurons demonstrates that this assumption is violated and illustrates the importance of using statistical models that reflect the hierarchical nature of electrophysiological datasets.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…All of these approaches can record the electrophysiological behavior of individual neurons and do so by performing (many) repeated measurements of each neuron. The repeated nature of electrophysiological measurements does however complicate the analysis of these recordings and commonly used analysis approaches are often overly conservative or unreliable due to pseudoreplication [Aarts et al, 2014; Yu et al, 2022].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The purpose of the current study was to 1) determine if the effects of dietary protein restriction on body weight, food consumption, and preference for protein solution could be demonstrated in individual C57BL/6J mice and whether such effects would be absent in Fgf 21‐KO mice and 2) illustrate how multilevel model analyses could be used with SCED data to quantify the effects of dietary protein restriction on those outcomes. An in‐depth discussion of the benefits of multilevel analyses is beyond the scope of the current manuscript, but their use has been advocated for the analysis of within‐subject repeated measures data for multiple reasons, including their ability to handle unbalanced and missing data (for detailed discussions see Boisgontier & Cheval, 2016; DeHart & Kaplan, 2019; Kaplan et al, 2021; Young, 2017; Young, 2018; Yu et al, 2021).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%