Dear Kim,

This may be of interest to you:

http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038234

Cheers,
Ed


On 24 Mar, 2014, at 17:00, freesurfer-request@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:

Message: 3

Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:28:29 +0900

From: jh kim <jhkim.merrf@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Difference in volumes btw 5.1 and 5,3

To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

Message-ID:

        <CADiwdtbtNUbiXaaQgoR9bwLBrEwFDfu4+Zv5VhViDhz3nfQOCg@mail.gmail.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


Dear Prof. Fischl


Thanks for the valuable comments.


Kim



2014-03-23 3:26 GMT+09:00 Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>:


Hi Kim


we of course always strive to make things more accurate, but in the end

it will depend on the details of your acquisition and such. I don't think

I have a better answer than that, other than to say look at the

segmentations and see if you think they are more accurate in one case

than the other.


sorry

Bruce

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014, jh kim wrote:


Dear Prof. Fischl

Thanks for the prompt response.


The more specific reason of my query is that there was a difference in

statistical significance between two FS versions.

For example, the result of group comparison of left thalamic volumes

(ANCOVA

controlling for age and eICV) is statistically significant (p = 0.04)

when

using FS 5.1, whereas the result is no longer significant at all (p =

0.28)

in case of FS 5.3.

I'm a little confused about this discrepancy.

Which result should I trust?


Thank you in advance for your comments.


Kim



2014-03-23 2:59 GMT+09:00 Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>:

      Hi Kim


      there are probably lots of little reasons for the differences.

      This is

      always true for different versions, and the reason we never mix

      versions


      cheers

      Bruce

      On

      Sun, 23 Mar 2014, jh kim wrote:


Dear FS lists

When I measured subcortical GM volumes in the same subjects by

      using both

version 5.1 and 5.3, I have observed a considerable difference

      in volumes

between the two versions.

For instance, please see the left thalamic volumes below.

I cannot figure out why there is much difference between the

      versions.

Which result is more reliable?


Left-Thalamus-Proper_5.3

Left-Thalamus-Proper_5.1

10313

9757

8924.8

7746

9834.8

8287

7935.2

7034

8764.1

7747

9411.8

8037

7636.7

8051

9334.7

8255

10024.3

8171

8757.7

6900

9540.9

8316

9294.4

8369

8091

7366

9103.7

7818

9310.2

7974

7583

6872

9838.9

8911

8829.6

8004

9094.8

6973

9492.3

8922

8821.6

7691

7971.6

7376

9901.2

8936

9773.9

8855

9283.7

7615

8801.6

7690

8505.1

7325

8981

7258

9644.7

8860

9104.2

8298

8494.8

7402

9024.9

7721

8117.8

7226

8001.8

7548

8392.3

7668

8606.6

8173

9126.7

7595

8093

7885

8317.7

7157

10556

9307

8669.6

8374

8034.7

7338

8148.5

7276

9048.1

8064

8160.1

7014

8747.9

7894

8329.9

6866

8415.8

8189

9246.9

8256

8194.1

7183

9629.2

9579

7688.2

6398

8349.2

8238

8366.2

7348

8436.5

7616

8372.3

6977

9396.4

7589

9327.5

7684

10001.8

8627

9762.4

9228

8841

8532

8342.4

8024

8645.7

7725


Any comment would be appreciated.

Thank you.


Kim



_______________________________________________

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer



The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom

it is

addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the

e-mail

contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance

HelpLine at

http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you

in error

but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender

and properly

dispose of the e-mail.





_______________________________________________

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer