This method has been applied in a number of methodological and applied studies (see for example, [ 10- 13]).
Basically, the comparison of spatial patterns of our geohazard results61 (Is, Ir, Ia, and Ic) to the previous studies17,19,20,21,67 is challenging owing to the geographical, scale, and methodological differences between the studies (see above).
There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity between the studies (see Table 1).
In addition, our accuracy estimation is based on one of the largest schizophrenic samples ever considered in functional biomarker research of this disorder (for a review and methodological considerations regarding previous studies, see Demirci et al., 2008).
We found that NKp46 expression, based on MFI, formed a single population (rather than two discrete high and low subpopulations) in 40% of our cohort, which may relate to methodological differences between the studies (see supplementary figure S6A, available online only).
Other items—We also extracted additional data to investigate clinical and methodological heterogeneity within and across studies (see sensitivity analyses for justification and methods).
We extracted a number of variables on study design and methodological characteristics, patient and intervention characteristics, and outcomes from all eligible studies (see appendix).
Their characteristics are summarised in table 2 and their details are presented in Additional file 2. The methodological quality of the studies varied substantially (see table 2 and Additional file 2, for further quality aspects of the clinical studies, see [ 12, 24- 26]).
We are aware of the theoretical and methodological limitations of our study (see the 'Study limitations' section below), including the danger of generalising from this small-scale qualitative study, however, still some trends emerged.
Maximizing the log-likelihood for dominant markers also gives unbiased estimates of S and H I. With the inherently lower information content of dominant markers, more markers are needed for precision, as seen in other methodological studies [ 24, 60, 61].
