Freesurfer November 2021

freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

77 participants
118 discussions

Unit of the Numbers in cache.th40.neg.y.ocn.dat
by Na, Xiaoxu 17 Feb '24

17 Feb '24

External Email - Use Caution Dear Freesurfer Experts, As I'd like to extract the average value of each subject in the cluster after running group analysis, may I know the unit of these numbers? Since the one I'm running is surface area, and the cluster is 444mm^2, all the numbers in the file cache.th40.neg.y.ocn.dat is in the range of [0.55 1.05], may I know if this is correct and if so, how the unit is for those? Thanks a lot! ClusterNo Max VtxMax Size(mm^2) MNIX MNIY MNIZ CWP CWPLow CWPHi NVtxs WghtVtx 1 -4.8321 40067 444.11 -58.1 -16.6 -23.9 0.0002 0 0.0004 670 -2784.11 Regards, Xiaoxu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

4 11

Extract single time frame
by Rockers, Elijah D. 16 Oct '22

16 Oct '22

Hello again, I have a large time series in dicom or .nii format. I am interested in extracting a single time frame from it. I did this before, I believe with freesurfer, but I have somehow forgot the name of the command, and I can't seem to find it. I believe it could be used to specify particular regions of the volume, as well as time. I need the entire volume, still, but only one frame. Thanks in advance! Eli Houston Methodist. Leading Medicine. Ranked by U.S.News & World Report as one of America's "Best Hospitals" in 11 specialties. Named to FORTUNE® Magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For®" list 10 years in a row. Designated as a Magnet hospital for excellence in nursing. Visit us at houstonmethodist.org. Follow us at twitter.com/MethodistHosp and www.facebook.com/HoustonMethodist. ***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This e-mail is the property of Houston Methodist Hospital and/or its relevant affiliates and may contain restricted and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender and delete all copies of the message. Thank you.

4 4

Reliability and sensitivity of two whole-brain segmentation approaches − ASEG and SAMSEG
by Donatas Sederevicius 28 Aug '22

28 Aug '22

External Email - Use Caution A new pre-print paper comparing two FreeSurfer’s whole-brain segmentation methods - ASEG and SAMSEG is now available (see the link below). The study is of great interest to many researchers in the field, providing new insights and guiding the selection of the processing method. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.13.335737v1

3 3

NeuroImage: Reports: Call for papers for Special Issue on Replication findings in neuroimaging studies
by YAN Chao-Gan 25 Feb '22

25 Feb '22

External Email - Use Caution Replication is essential for progress in science. There are several reasons why findings may not replicate, including sampling variability, limited statistical power, cultural/population influences, and improvements in data acquisition and analysis methods. Replication studies are our best attempt at confirming or questioning the reliability of important findings. Replication studies also provide a crucial mechanism for reaching consensus about empirical support for or against a theory. Unfortunately, replication studies are difficult to publish, because many journals judge them as “lacking novelty.” For these reasons, we have created a special issue that highlights replication studies. We invite submissions that seek to replicate published neuroimaging studies, regardless of whether the initial results are confirmed. The primary criteria for acceptance are methodological and statistical rigor -- not conceptual novelty. Novel results are also welcomed, but authors must clearly state which analyses are replications and which are novel. Researchers may use their own collected data, original data from the to-be-replicated study, or publicly available data. We hope that this special issue will help highlight the importance of rigorous replication studies for ensuring progress in neuroimaging. *Submission instructions* The Neuroimage: Reports submission system is open for submissions to our Special Issue from *01 Oct 2021*. When submitting your manuscript please select the article type “*VSI: Replication*”. Please submit your manuscript before *01 Mar 2022.* All submissions deemed suitable to be sent for peer review will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Once your manuscript is accepted, it will go into production, and will be simultaneously published in the current regular issue and pulled into the online Special Issue. Articles from this Special Issue will appear in different regular issues of the journal, though they will be clearly marked and branded as Special Issue articles. Please see an example here: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1CJkKxcFEBPguyPfb5m0Yr2MoiAzErZw3HYZKhuEAMSHET… Please ensure you read the Guide for Authors before writing your manuscript. The Guide for Authors and link to submit your manuscript is available on the Journal’s homepage at: https://secure-web.cisco.com/1VSgggrvcDPky-89wNR6lcPY0XqXuCfOZAX-r7Wa1HcuPp… Inquiries, including questions about appropriate topics, may be sent electronically to Dr. Yan Chao-Gan (ycg.yan(a)gmail.com) Best, Chao-Gan -- Chao-Gan YAN, Ph.D. Professor, Principal Investigator Director, International Big-Data Center for Depression Research Director, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research Center Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 16 Lincui Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China - Initiator <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1sqIAAZ4sZdTTXMKfxT5Aar2JR-7UiWQN4aQSU7ygjFTldr…>DPABI <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1oInECTabhfK3d2rurp29HORgmXMA7sq2SIDskuFNuKnDgO…> <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1sqIAAZ4sZdTTXMKfxT5Aar2JR-7UiWQN4aQSU7ygjFTldr…>, DPABISurf, <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1XPTEW4lBFtrlvcsygGbgiVdlAQ26ae4_S7nefApkjEds0k…>DPARSF <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1sqIAAZ4sZdTTXMKfxT5Aar2JR-7UiWQN4aQSU7ygjFTldr…>, and The R-fMRI Network <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1TCtydiq5Yh8xn1WXFHq0xSYHUMfBiOaJiSlkzkVhdXs_ms…> ( RFMRI.ORG <http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Y_OweFD7n8m7sSc_adhdgF-QyZ2_4q16Hw2t4tYSmw0HA2…>) http://secure-web.cisco.com/1p7GiR8RwAPykrvrU-kv5cEmnIMwRR95RSJmBn47-AcsD64… http://secure-web.cisco.com/1wC4UpbExTFsWuXE3IWRwjCjcBW1uPj-8MrNX4mlQzLH_o7…

1 1

Interpreting Covariate Paired Analysis Results
by PDMD SRALab 02 Jan '22

02 Jan '22

External Email - Use Caution We are using a paired analysis approach to study cortical thickness in a dataset with 2 timepoints (called pre-protocol and post-protocol). Regarding the mean cluster summary (contrast: [1 0]), we understand positive values to mean pre > post (thinning) and negative values to mean post > pre (thickening). The covariate results are more difficult to interpret. For instance, we’re interested in looking at the effects of age (contrast: [0 1]) on the cortical thickness results. In the age cluster summary, is it fair to interpret positive results as positive correlation (older subjects show more thickening) and negative results as inverse correlation (older subjects show more thinning) or is the interpretation more complex than this? We’re getting mainly negative cluster results for age so this interpretation may make sense, but we’d like more clarity. Thank you for your help.

2 4

Freesurfer v7.x and bias correction -3T option not working
by Notestine, Christine 12 Dec '21

12 Dec '21

External Email - Use Caution We recently moved to FreeSurfer 7.1.1 running it on ~ 100 different types of cases using the -3T options, but after a case failure, we looked deeper into the v7.x changes related to bias correction, and it seems that using the -3T option did not produce a different bias corrected outcome than using the default for any cases (see description below). IF this is truly the case, our workaround would be to continue using the MNI N3 approach options we had before (e.g., an expert option file with the line: mri_nu_correct.mni --no-ants-n4), since that improved the correction in our data previously, but would like to make sure we are interpreting the v7 approach correctly. Thoughts on this appreciated, many thanks: * In earlier FreeSurfer versions, we used the options based on the Zheng paper with N3 as recommended for 3T data. So with our switch to v7.1.1 which is now using ANTs N4, we looked into the 3T options with the flags described on the wiki, and used those flags in our runs accordingly. * However, once we had this case failure (which had worked in a prior FS version run with the N3 3T flags), we dug into things and did some test runs. We found that in Freesurfer v7.1.1 when using ANTs N4 (i.e., AntsN4BiasFieldCorrectionFs) [instead of MNI N3 (i.e., nu_correct)], the effect of specifying the recon-all -3T (or -nuintensitycor-3T) option did not change the outcome relative to the default bias correction: * In v7.1.1, it seems that when ANTs N4 is used for bias field correction, the same bias field correction is performed whether the -3T (or -nuintensitycor-3T) option is specified or not. We assessed this by creating nu.mgz difference images (between runs with and without the -3T option) and confirmed by reviewing logs and the mri_nu_correct.mni script. * When the ANTs N4 bias field correction is used with the -3T options, the parameters for stronger bias field correction (i.e., "--n 1 --proto-iters 1000 --distance 50") are passed to mri_nu_correct.mni, but then seem to be dropped by mri_nu_correct.mni and not included in the subsequent call to AntsN4BiasFieldCorrectionFs. * Below are the relevant lines extracted from a mri_nu_correct.mni.log when stronger bias field correction was specified via the -3T (or -nuintensitycor-3T) option to recon-all but the parameters do not seem to be used by ANTs: mri_nu_correct.mni.log: ... /usr/local/freesurfer/bin/mri_nu_correct.mni --no-rescale --i orig.mgz --o orig_nu.mgz --ants-n4 --n 1 --proto-iters 1000 --distance 50 nIters 1 mri_nu_correct.mni 7.1.1 ... AntsN4BiasFieldCorrectionFs -i orig.mgz -o /dev/shm/tmp.mri_nu_correct.mni.2116356/nu0.mgz Using shrink factor: 4 ... -- Christine Fennema-Notestine, Ph.D.

2 6

howto create a .label files with dilated content
by Krieger, Donald N. 10 Dec '21

10 Dec '21

External Email - Use Caution I wish to use the "-dilate n" capability of mri_extract_label or other tool to create label files for ctx regions. mri_extract_label appears to only be capable of writing output to .mgz files and I do not find a tool for extracting labels from a .mgz into an ascii .label file. Your direction would be welcome. Thanks - Don [cid:image001.jpg@01D7E53E.59F4AFA0] Don Krieger, Ph.D. Research Scientist Department of Neurological Surgery University of Pittsburgh

3 4

FSGD file
by Laura Willers de Souza 10 Dec '21

10 Dec '21

External Email - Use Caution Hello FreeSurfer Developers, I would like to know what I put in the FSGD file for patients who don't have data for a variable. In my case, I want to analyze CU (cognitively unimpaired) patients versus CI (cognitively impaired) patients, controlling for CSF and plasma cortisol values. And some patients have only the CSF value and others only the plasma value. Would the analysis be correct if I put the mean of the non-missing values of this variable in those cells that don't have data? Would you be so kind to help me with that? Thanks in advance! Laura.

2 1

REtrieve perimeter from generated surfaces
by Fernanda Hansen P. de Moraes 10 Dec '21

10 Dec '21

External Email - Use Caution Dear FreeSurfer experts, Is there a way to estimate the perimeter from a surface (e.g. ?h.pial) for each slice in an automated manner at any orientation? Thank you very much, Fernanda Hansen P. de Moraes fernandahmoraes(a)gmail.com Doutoranda em Ciências Médicas | Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e Ensino e metaBIO (IF-UFRJ)

2 1

Information on anova 2x2 longitudinal design
by stdp82＠virgilio.it 10 Dec '21

10 Dec '21

External Email - Use Caution Hi list, I have two groups undergoing two different treatments: one's placebo (n=12), one's drug (n=12). Two timepoints, at baseline (T1, no treatment) and at treatment (T2). 2x2 ANOVA, repeted measures has been applied by following the guidlines and mailing list. Please chech the design matrix, the command line produces an error. GroupDescriptorFile 1 Title 2x2_repeted_measures Class Subject1 Class Subject2 Class Subject3 Class Subject4 Class Subject5 Class Subject6 Class Subject7 Class Subject8 Class Subject9 Class Subject10 Class Subject11 Class Subject12 Class Subject13 Class Subject14 Class Subject15 Class Subject16 Class Subject17 Class Subject18 Class Subject19 Class Subject20 Class Subject21 Class Subject22 Class Subject23 Class Subject24 Variables tp1-vs-tp2.drug tp1-vs-tp2.plb Input CODE01_tp1 Subject1 1 0 Input CODE02_tp1 Subject2 1 0 Input CODE03_tp1 Subject3 1 0 Input CODE05_tp1 Subject4 1 0 Input CODE06_tp1 Subject5 0 1 Input CODE07_tp1 Subject6 0 1 Input CODE09_tp1 Subject7 0 1 Input CODE10_tp1 Subject8 1 0 Input CODE11_tp1 Subject9 1 0 Input CODE12_tp1 Subject10 0 1 Input CODE13_tp1 Subject11 0 1 Input CODE14_tp1 Subject12 1 0 Input CODE15_tp1 Subject13 1 0 Input CODE16_tp1 Subject14 1 0 Input CODE17_tp1 Subject15 0 1 Input CODE18_tp1 Subject16 1 0 Input CODE19_tp1 Subject17 0 1 Input CODE20_tp1 Subject18 0 1 Input CODE21_tp1 Subject19 0 1 Input CODE22_tp1 Subject20 1 0 Input CODE23_tp1 Subject21 0 1 Input CODE24_tp1 Subject22 0 1 Input CODE25_tp1 Subject23 1 0 Input CODE26_tp1 Subject24 0 1 Input CODE01_tp2 Subject1 -1 0 Input CODE02_tp2 Subject2 -1 0 Input CODE03_tp2 Subject3 -1 0 Input CODE05_tp2 Subject4 -1 0 Input CODE06_tp2 Subject5 0 -1 Input CODE07_tp2 Subject6 0 -1 Input CODE09_tp2 Subject7 0 -1 Input CODE10_tp2 Subject8 -1 0 Input CODE11_tp2 Subject9 -1 0 Input CODE12_tp2 Subject10 0 -1 Input CODE13_tp2 Subject11 0 -1 Input CODE14_tp2 Subject12 -1 0 Input CODE15_tp2 Subject13 -1 0 Input CODE16_tp2 Subject14 -1 0 Input CODE17_tp2 Subject15 0 -1 Input CODE18_tp2 Subject16 -1 0 Input CODE19_tp2 Subject17 0 -1 Input CODE20_tp2 Subject18 0 -1 Input CODE21_tp2 Subject19 0 -1 Input CODE22_tp2 Subject20 -1 0 Input CODE23_tp2 Subject21 0 -1 Input CODE24_tp2 Subject22 0 -1 Input CODE25_tp2 Subject23 -1 0 Input CODE26_tp2 Subject24 0 -1 a) groupxtime.mtx 0 0 1 -1 b) tp1-vs-tp2.Mod.mtx 0 0 1 0 c) tp1-vs-tp2.Plb.mtx 0 0 0 -1 mri_glmfit --y ces.nii.gz --wls cesvar.nii.gz --surface fsaverage rh --glmdir repeted_measures.wls --nii.gz --fsgd Repeted_measure.fsgd --C Tp1-vs-Tp2.Mod.mtx --C Tp1-vs-Tp2.Plb.mtx --C groupxtime.mtx ERROR: dimension mismatch between X and contrast Tp1-vs-Tp2.Mod.mtx X has 72 cols, C has 4 cols

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Freesurfer November 2021