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. . . .
That’s not a gentle nudge that some results might be overstated: it’s more like making a bonfire of thousands of scientific papers
No kidding. That is a huge problem. The paper cited in that article says they expected only 5% false-positive results. But perhaps even more interesting was this comment at the end.
they swipe the fMRI community for their “lamentable archiving and data-sharing practices” that prevent most of the discipline’s body of work being re-analysed.
I assumed something as scientific as fMRI scans would always be saved as raw data ready to be reinterpreted. Considering the low cost of data storage and the huge advantages of being able to reinterpret the raw data when newer software and methods of interpretation become available, I hope this is a practice that changes soon.