mteb/BrightProPsychologyRetrieval huggingface dataset:
*  Home 
*  Annual Meeting  
*       *         *  General Information  
*  Code of Conduct 
*  Accessibility at CNS 
*  Thank you to our Partners 
*  Dates and Deadlines 
*  Hotel Reservations 
*  Poster Printing 
*  International Traveler Information 
*  Need a VISA Invitation? 
*  Advance Declaration 
*  Annual Meeting Workshop Policy & Application 
*  Exhibit with us! 
*  About Toronto 
*         *  Program  
*  CNS 2024 Annual Meeting 
*  Schedule of Events 
*  Keynote Address 
*  George A. Miller Award Lecture 
*  Distinguished Career Contributions Award Lecture 
*  Young Investigator Award Lectures 
*  Symposia 
*  Invited Symposia 
*  Poster Sessions 
*  Data Blitz Sessions 
*  Search Abstracts 
*  JoCN Travel Fellowship Award 2024 
*  GSA/PFA Award Winners 
*  Workshops, Socials & Special Events 
*         *  Registration  
*  Registration 
*  CNS Volunteer Application 
*  Registration Policies 
*  Registration FAQ 
*  Need a VISA Invitation? 
*         *  News/Press  
*  CNS 2024 Press Room 
*  CNS 2022 Blog 
*  CNS 2023 Blog 
*  CNS 2021 Blog 
*  CNS 2020 Blog 
*         *  Submissions  
*  Poster Printing 
*  Submit a Symposium 
*  Submit a Poster 
*  Printed Poster Guidelines 
*  Data Blitz 
*  GSA or PFA Application 
*         *  Archive  
*  CNS 2023 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2022 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2021 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2020 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2019 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2018 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2017 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2016 Conference Videos 
*  CNS 2015 Conference Videos 
*  Previous Meetings Programs & Abstracts 
*  About CNS  
*  Boards and Committees 
*  CNS Diversity and Inclusion Statement 
*  Membership  
*  Information and Benefits 
*  Join or Renew Membership 
*  Membership FAQs 
*  Newsletter  
*  CNS Newsletters 
*  Submit an Announcement 
*  Newsletter FAQs 
*  Awards  
*  George A. Miller Award 
*  The Distinguished Career Contributions Award 
*  Young Investigator Award 
*  JoCN Travel Fellowship Award 
*  News Center  
*  CNS Blog 
*  CNS 2024 Press Room 
*  CNS 2023 Blog 
*  CNS 2022 Blog 
*  CNS 2021 Blog 
*  CNS 2020 Blog 
*  CNS 2019 Blog 
*  Blog Archives 
*  Quick Tips for Getting Started on Twitter 
*  Media Contact 
* MY CNS
*  Set Account Password 
*  Account Login 
*  Create an Account 
*  Contact Us
The Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
*  Facebook  
*  RSS  
*  Twitter
*  R&D Projects  
*  Call for Research Projects 2020
How Artinis fNIRS systems are ideal for monitoring the brain of sensitive
participants
Modified Beer–Lambert law  

Changes in light intensity can be related to changes in relative
concentrations of hemoglobin through the modified  Beer–Lambert law
 (mBLL). The Beer lambert-
law has to deal with concentration of hemoglobin. This technique also measures
relative changes in light attenuation as well as using mBLL to quantify
hemoglobin concentration changes.  [7]

Basic functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) abbreviations

BFi = blood flow index

CBF = cerebral blood flow

CBV = cerebral blood volume

CMRO  2  = metabolic rate of oxygen

CW= continuous wave

DCS = diffuse correlation spectroscopy

FD = frequency-domain

Hb, HbR= deoxygenated hemoglobin

HbO, HbO  2  = oxygenated hemoglobin

HbT= total hemoglobin concentration

HGB = blood hemoglobin

SaO  2  = arterial saturation

SO  2  = hemoglobin saturation

SvO  2  = venous saturation

TD=time-domain

---
* _Lai Y et al. (2020)._  **Determining Whether Tennis Benefits the Updating Function in Young Children: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study.**  Applied Sciences 10(1):407.
##   What are the Implicit Reaction Time Tests (IRTs) and how they are
applied in Neuromarketing
Folder:  What is NIRS
7  Min.
Cognitive Neuroscience Society
c/o Center for Mind and Brain
267 Cousteau Place, Davis, CA 95618
[ 844-426-8880: ](tel:844-426-8880) Office Phone; Monday-Friday, 9:00 am -
5:00 pm
[ 844-426-8880: ](tel:844-426-8880) Fax Line
email:   meeting@cogneurosociety.org
*  About Bitbrain  
*  Careers
System design  

At least two open-source fNIRS models are available online:

*  http://www.opennirs.org 
*  https://openfnirs.org/
###  Login Utility
####  Publications
###  Combined solution of Cortivision and Bitbrain
The combination of fNIRS and EEG is one of the many solutions developed in
recent years for multimodal research. This post  "Beyond Research Horizons:
The Synergy of Technologies in Multimodal Labs"
 explores deeply the value
of multimodal recording and the combination of eye tracking, EEG, and other
technologies in research studies.
*  Confidence interval 
*  Pivot 
*  Likelihood interval 
*  Prediction interval 
*  Tolerance interval 
*  Resampling  "Resampling \(statistics\)")
*  Bootstrap  "Bootstrapping \(statistics\)")
*  Jackknife
24. Gandhi GY, Murad MH, Fujiyoshi A, et al. Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. JAMA. 2008;299:2543–9.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.21.2543  .
Incidence  "Incidence \(epidemiology\)") ,
 Cumulative incidence  ,
 Prevalence  ,  Point prevalence
 ,  Period prevalence
####  Find Me At
19. Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, et al. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330:1053.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F  .
Randomized experiments  first appeared in  psychology  , where they were introduced by  Charles Sanders
Peirce  and  Joseph
Jastrow  in the 1880s,  [14]  and in 
education  .  [15]  [16]
[17]
**Fig. 4**
---|---
 Frequentist inference 
|
* Year of publication
ISSN: 1471-2288
*  Cartography 
*  Environmental statistics 
*  Geographic information system 
*  Geostatistics 
*  Kriging
Treatment 
and  blocking  "Blocking \(statistics\)") |
*  Actuarial science 
*  Census 
*  Crime statistics 
*  Demography 
*  Econometrics 
*  Jurimetrics 
*  National accounts 
*  Official statistics 
*  Population statistics 
*  Psychometrics
**_How MLM Companies Are Holding Women Back_ **
---
 Scientific
method  |
7. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”. The Lancet. 2005;365(9453):82–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17670-8 17670-8) .
*  Population  "Population \(statistics\)")
*  Statistic 
*  Probability distribution 
*  Sampling distribution 
*  Order statistic 
*  Empirical distribution 
*  Density estimation 
*  Statistical model 
*  Model specification 
*  L  _p_ space 
*  Parameter 
*  location 
*  scale 
*  shape 
*  Parametric family 
*  Likelihood   (monotone)  
*  Location–scale family 
*  Exponential family 
*  Completeness  "Completeness \(statistics\)")
*  Sufficiency 
*  Statistical functional 
*  Bootstrap  "Bootstrapping \(statistics\)")
*  U 
*  V 
*  Optimal decision 
*  loss function 
*  Efficiency  "Efficiency \(statistics\)")
*  Statistical distance 
*  divergence  "Divergence \(statistics\)")
*  Asymptotics  "Asymptotic theory \(statistics\)")
*  Robustness
* ** Factorial  **
*  Fractional factorial 
*  Plackett–Burman 
*  Taguchi
##  Ethics
* Objectively assessed (e.g., laboratory results)
We found no statistical difference in intervention effect estimates between
PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs; the combined ROR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.08) (Fig.  2
 ). The heterogeneity across MAs
was moderate (I  2  = 45, 95%CI 29 to 58%, between–meta-analysis variance τ  2
= 0.07).
Specifying Fixed and Random Factors in Mixed Models
|   Study design  |
*  Bar chart 
*  Biplot 
*  Box plot 
*  Control chart 
*  Correlogram 
*  Fan chart  "Fan chart \(statistics\)")
*  Forest plot 
*  Histogram 
*  Pie chart 
*  Q–Q plot 
*  Radar chart 
*  Run chart 
*  Scatter plot 
*  Stem-and-leaf display 
*  Violin plot
##  Love Bombing
###  By study design
CAS   Google
Scholar
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which oversees consumer protection laws in
the United States, even states that you need to  be cautious of the emotional
manipulation  practices used by MLMs and warns they are
generally bad investments of time and money.
One way to classify RCTs is by  study design  . From most to least common in the healthcare literature, the major
categories of RCT study designs are:  [38]
* 1522  Accesses
Click here to learn more  .
Design of experiments
Navigating Nutrition
*  Errors and residuals 
*  Regression validation 
*  Mixed effects models 
*  Simultaneous equations models 
*  Multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS)
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928
##  Disadvantages
25. Rahimi K, Malhotra A, Banning AP, et al. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c5707  .
*  ** Category  **
* **   Mathematics portal  **
*  ** Commons  **
*  ** WikiProject  **
RCTs without blinding are referred to as "unblinded",  [62]  "open",  [63]  or
(if the intervention is a medication) "  open-label  ".  [64]  In 2008 a study concluded that the results of
unblinded RCTs tended to be biased toward beneficial effects only if the RCTs'
outcomes were subjective as opposed to objective;  [58]  for example, in an
RCT of treatments for  multiple sclerosis  , unblinded neurologists (but not the blinded
neurologists) felt that the treatments were beneficial.  [65]  In pragmatic
RCTs, although the participants and providers are often unblinded, it is
"still desirable and often possible to blind the assessor or obtain an
objective source of data for evaluation of outcomes."  [45]
*  Decomposition 
*  Trend 
*  Stationarity 
*  Seasonal adjustment 
*  Exponential smoothing 
*  Cointegration 
*  Structural break 
*  Granger causality
2. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S, et al. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. BMJ. 1998;317:858–61.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7162.858  .
3. Agnès Caille
From 1765 identified systematic reviews, we selected 76 MAs with 1685 trials,
from which 614 trials were selected (Fig.  1
 , full references of the 76 MAs
in Additional file  1  and  2
 ). Of these 76 MAs, 33 (43.4%)
evaluated a pharmacological intervention, 15 (19.7%) had an active control and
32 (42.1%) concerned a subjective outcome. The median number of trials
included per MA was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 3.8–10). MA characteristics
are detailed in Table  1  .
*  Autocorrelation (ACF) 
*  partial (PACF) 
*  Cross-correlation (XCF) 
*  ARMA model 
*  ARIMA model  (Box–Jenkins)  
*  Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) 
*  Vector autoregression (VAR)
###   **Additional file 2.**
|   Survival function  |
Form of scientific experiment
##  In social science
.") ]. Our study is sufficiently powered, and the ROR point estimate was very close to 1, which indeed supports the conclusion of an absence of differences in intervention effect estimates between PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs. However, among the 76 MAs, 29 (38.2%) were related to psychiatry (mainly depression) or addictology (mainly tobacco use) and 10 (13.2%) to pneumology. Very few MAs were dedicated to cardiovascular conditions ( _n_ = 4, 5.3%) or diabetes ( _n_ = 1, 1.3%). So the medical fields represented in our study do not well match those mostly frequently encountered in primary care, typically cardiovascular diseases (13.6%), muskuloskeletal troubles (12.6%) and pneumology (12.5%), with psychatric diseases representing only 8.5% of the consultations [  23  ]. Therefore, how we selected the MAs for our study led to a sample of diseases that does not perfectly reflect the diseases mainly managed in primary care. Other studies should probably focus on specific medical fields or diseases rather than considering all MAs, whatever the medical field.
Analysis of clinical trials  |
*  Sign 
*  Sample median 
*  Signed rank  (Wilcoxon)  
*  Hodges–Lehmann estimator 
*  Rank sum  (Mann–Whitney)  
*  Nonparametric   anova 
*  1-way  (Kruskal–Wallis)  
*  2-way  (Friedman)  
*  Ordered alternative  (Jonckheere–Terpstra)  
*  Van der Waerden test
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-218
*  Chemometrics 
*  Methods engineering 
*  Probabilistic design 
*  Process  /  quality control 
*  Reliability 
*  System identification
*  1- & 2-tails 
*  Power  "Power \(statistics\)")
*  Uniformly most powerful test 
*  Permutation test 
*  Randomization test 
*  Multiple comparisons
Interventions to prevent events that occur only infrequently (e.g.,  sudden
infant death syndrome  ) and uncommon adverse outcomes (e.g., a rare side effect of
a drug) would require RCTs with extremely large sample sizes and may,
therefore, best be assessed by observational studies.  [79]
subscribe to StatWise newsletter

Menu

*  our programs  
*  Membership  
*  Workshops  
*  Tutorials  
*  Seminars  
*  Statistical Consulting Services  
*  Free Webinars  
*  statistical resources  
*  blog  
*  about  
*  Our Team  
*  Our Core Values  
*  Our Privacy Policy  
*  Employment  
*  Collaborate with Us  
*  contact  
*  login
*  Effect size 
*  Missing data 
*  Optimal design 
*  Population 
*  Replication  "Replication \(statistics\)")
*  Sample size determination 
*  Statistic 
*  Statistical power
*  Asymptomatic carrier 
*  Epidemics 
*  List 
*  Notifiable diseases 
*  List 
*  Public health surveillance 
*  Disease surveillance 
*  Quarantine 
*  Sexually transmitted infection 
*  Social distancing 
*  Tropical disease 
*  Vaccine trial
###  Corresponding author
|   Continuous data  |
* ** Treatment  **
*  Effect size 
*  Contrast  "Contrast \(statistics\)")
*  Interaction  "Interaction \(statistics\)")
*  Confounding 
*  Orthogonality 
* ** Blocking  "Blocking \(statistics\)") **
*  Covariate 
*  Nuisance variable
*  Spectral density estimation 
*  Fourier analysis 
*  Least-squares spectral analysis 
*  Wavelet 
*  Whittle likelihood
Organizations,
education
and history  |
Fixed and Random Factors in Mixed Models: What is
the Difference?
* Maximize  statistical power  , especially in  subgroup analyses  . Generally, equal group sizes maximize statistical power, however, unequal groups sizes may be more powerful for some analyses (e.g., multiple comparisons of placebo versus several doses using Dunnett's procedure  [51]  ), and are sometimes desired for non-analytic reasons (e.g., patients may be more motivated to enroll if there is a higher chance of getting the test treatment, or regulatory agencies may require a minimum number of patients exposed to treatment).  [52]
* Minimize selection bias. This may occur if investigators can consciously or unconsciously preferentially enroll patients between treatment arms. A good randomization procedure will be unpredictable so that investigators cannot guess the next subject's group assignment based on prior treatment assignments. The risk of selection bias is highest when previous treatment assignments are known (as in unblinded studies) or can be guessed (perhaps if a drug has distinctive side effects).
* Minimize allocation bias (or confoundin). This may occur when  covariates  that affect the outcome are not equally distributed between treatment groups, and the treatment effect is confounded with the effect of the covariates (i.e., an "accidental bias"  [47]  [53]  ). If the randomization procedure causes an imbalance in covariates related to the outcome across groups, estimates of effect may be  biased  if not adjusted for the covariates (which may be unmeasured and therefore impossible to adjust for).
####  Simple
---|---
 Multivariate  |
---|---
 Dispersion  |
*  Simple linear regression 
*  Ordinary least squares 
*  General linear model 
*  Bayesian regression
###  Time and costs
4. Agnès Dechartres
Measures  |
*  All articles with dead external links 
*  Articles with dead external links from December 2021 
*  Articles with short description 
*  Short description is different from Wikidata 
*  All articles with unsourced statements 
*  Articles with unsourced statements from November 2023 
*  All Wikipedia articles needing clarification 
*  Wikipedia articles needing clarification from April 2019
5. Adeline Hoang
This is a commonly used and intuitive procedure, similar to "repeated fair
coin-tossing."  [47]  Also known as "complete" or "unrestricted"
randomization, it is  robust 
against both selection and accidental biases. However, its main drawback is
the possibility of imbalanced group sizes in small RCTs. It is therefore
recommended only for RCTs with over 200 subjects.  [54]
*  Clinical research 
*  Epidemiological study projects 
*  Evidence-based practices 
*  Design of experiments 
*  Causal inference 
*  Experiments 
*  Research methods
###  Statistical analysis
###  Criminology
Participants who enroll in RCTs differ from one another in known and unknown
ways that can influence study outcomes, and yet cannot be directly controlled.
By  randomly allocating 
participants among compared treatments, an RCT enables _statistical control_
over these influences. Provided it is designed well, conducted properly, and
enrolls enough participants, an RCT may achieve sufficient control over these
 confounding factors  to
deliver a useful comparison of the treatments studied.
* ** Block  **
*  Generalized randomized block design  (GRBD)
*  Latin square 
*  Graeco-Latin square 
*  Orthogonal array 
*  Latin hypercube 
** Repeated measures design  **
Survival  |
---|---
 Interval estimation  |
Message ID:  919845892
Count data  |
|  Organizations  |
.") ].
* ** Randomized controlled trial  **
*  Sequential analysis 
*  Sequential probability ratio test
##  Social Pressure
Infectious and epidemic
disease prevention  |
Models 
and  inference  |
|   Point estimation  |
###   **Additional file 3.**
* Covariate-adaptive randomization, of which one type is  minimization  "Minimisation \(clinical trials\)") : The probability of being assigned to a group varies in order to minimize "covariate imbalance."  [54]  Minimization is reported to have "supporters and detractors"  [48]  because only the first subject's group assignment is truly chosen at random, the method does not necessarily eliminate bias on unknown factors.  [5]
* Response-adaptive randomization, also known as outcome-adaptive randomization: The probability of being assigned to a group increases if the responses of the prior patients in the group were favorable.  [54]  Although arguments have been made that this approach is more ethical than other types of randomization when the probability that a treatment is effective or ineffective increases during the course of an RCT, ethicists have not yet studied the approach in detail.  [55]
###  Procedures
* ** Response surface methodology  **
*  Polynomial and rational modeling 
*  Box–Behnken 
*  Central composite
*  Auxology 
*  Biological hazard 
*  Chief Medical Officer 
*  Cultural competence 
*  Deviance  "Deviance \(sociology\)")
*  Environmental health 
*  Euthenics 
*  Genomics 
*  Globalization and disease 
*  Harm reduction 
*  Health economics 
*  Health literacy 
*  Health policy 
*  Health system 
*  Health care reform 
*  Management of depression 
*  Public health law 
*  National public health institute 
*  Health politics 
*  Maternal health 
*  Medical anthropology 
*  Medical sociology 
*  Mental health  (  Ministers  )
*  Pharmaceutical policy 
*  Pollution 
*  Air 
*  Water 
*  Soil 
*  Radiation 
*  Light 
*  Public health intervention 
*  Public health laboratory 
*  Sexual and reproductive health 
*  Social psychology 
*  Sociology of health and illness
7. Clarisse Dibao-Dina
Bayesian inference  |
Reader Interactions

* * *
_For each eligible RCT included in the MA:_
Parametric tests  |
17. Moustgaard H, Jones HE, Savović J, et al. Ten questions to consider when interpreting results of a meta-epidemiological study—the MetaBLIND study as a case. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11:260–74.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1392  .
###  By outcome of interest (efficacy vs. effectiveness)  ") ]
6. Steel N, Abdelhamid A, Stokes T, et al. A review of clinical practice guidelines found that they were often based on evidence of uncertain relevance to primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1251–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.020  .
---
Overview  |
|  General  |
---|---
Specific tests  |
*  Sara Josephine Baker 
*  Samuel Jay Crumbine 
*  Carl Rogers Darnall 
*  Joseph Lister 
*  Margaret Sanger 
*  John Snow  "John Snow \(physician\)")
*  Typhoid Mary 
*  Radium Girls 
*  Germ theory of disease 
*  Social hygiene movement
* After  Food and Drug Administration  approval, the  antiarrhythmic agents   flecainide  and  encainide  came to market in 1986 and 1987 respectively.  [90]  The non-randomized studies concerning the drugs were characterized as "glowing",  [91]  and their sales increased to a combined total of approximately 165,000 prescriptions per month in early 1989.  [90]  In that year, however, a preliminary report of an RCT concluded that the two drugs increased mortality.  [92]  Sales of the drugs then decreased.  [90]
* Prior to 2002, based on observational studies, it was routine for physicians to prescribe hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal women to prevent  myocardial infarction  .  [91]  In 2002 and 2004, however, published RCTs from the  Women's Health Initiative  claimed that women taking hormone replacement therapy with estrogen plus progestin had a higher rate of myocardial infarctions than women on a placebo, and that estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy caused no reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease.  [68]  [93]  Possible explanations for the discrepancy between the observational studies and the RCTs involved differences in methodology, in the hormone regimens used, and in the populations studied.  [94]  [95]  The use of hormone replacement therapy decreased after publication of the RCTs.  [96]
* Medical field
Two studies published in _ The New England Journal of Medicine
 _ in 2000 found that  observational studies
 and RCTs overall produced
similar results.  [74]  [75]  The authors of the 2000 findings questioned the
belief that "observational studies should not be used for defining evidence-
based medical care" and that RCTs' results are "evidence of the highest
grade."  [74]  [75]  However, a 2001 study published in _ Journal of the
American Medical Association
 _ concluded that "discrepancies beyond chance do occur
and differences in estimated magnitude of treatment effect are very common"
between observational studies and RCTs.  [76]  According to a 2014 (updated in
2024) Cochrane review, there is little evidence for significant effect
differences between observational studies and randomized controlled trials.
[77]  To evaluate differences it is necessary to consider things other than
design, such as heterogeneity, population, intervention or comparator.  [77]
###  Study selection and general characteristics
The intervention:
6. Bruno Giraudeau
To compare PC-RCTs and ST-RCTs, we used the two-step approach described by
Sterne et al. [  12  ]. First for each meta-analysis, we
estimated a ratio of odds ratio (ROR) by using random-effects meta-regression.
In our study, the ROR was the ratio of the OR for PC-RCTs to the OR for ST-
RCTs, An ROR less than 1 indicates lower intervention effects for PC-RCTs.
Second, we estimated a combined ROR across meta-analyses and the 95%
confidence interval (CI) by using a random-effects meta-analysis model. The
heterogeneity across MAs was assessed with the I  2  statistic and its 95% CI
and the between–meta-analysis variance τ  2  .
*  Bayesian probability 
*  prior 
*  posterior 
*  Credible interval 
*  Bayes factor 
*  Bayesian estimator 
*  Maximum posterior estimator
The randomness in the assignment of participants to treatments reduces 
selection bias  and allocation bias,
balancing both known and unknown prognostic factors, in the assignment of
treatments.  [5]  Blinding reduces other forms of  experimenter and subject
biases  .
* ** Category  **
* ** Glossary  **
* ** List of topics  **