Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37988465›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

Phantom oscillations in principal component analysis.

Maxwell Shinn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Altricial brains and the evolution of infant vocal learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Individual-specific strategies inform category learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  13. Perinatal development of structural thalamocortical connectivity.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Why the simplest explanation isn't always the best.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Maxwell ShinnUniversity College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7424-4230

Funding

European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) ALTF 712-2021UKRI | Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) BB/H008217/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a dimensionality reduction method that is known for being simple and easy to interpret. Principal components are often interpreted as low-dimensional patterns in high-dimensional space. However, this simple interpretation fails for timeseries, spatial maps, and other continuous data. In these cases, nonoscillatory data may have oscillatory principal components. Here, we show that two common properties of data cause oscillatory principal components: smoothness and shifts in time or space. These two properties implicate almost all neuroscience data. We show how the oscillations produced by PCA, which we call "phantom oscillations," impact data analysis. We also show that traditional cross-validation does not detect phantom oscillations, so we suggest procedures that do. Our findings are supported by a collection of mathematical proofs. Collectively, our work demonstrates that patterns which emerge from high-dimensional data analysis may not faithfully represent the underlying data.

Indexed as

data analysisdimensionality reductionoscillationsPCA

Identifiers

PMID37988465
PMCPMC10691246

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.