Thank you, Victor. 1.5x1x1mm is not ideal, but you should be able to run the modules. Just make sure to QC the output. Cheers, /Eugenio
Juan Eugenio Iglesias Senior research fellow CMIC (UCL), MGH (HMS) and CSAIL (MIT) http://www.jeiglesias.com
From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of "Zeng, Victor (BIDMC - Keshavan - Psychiatry)" vzeng@bidmc.harvard.edu Reply-To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Date: Thursday, July 2, 2020 at 16:02 To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Cc: "joliehoang22@gmail.com" joliehoang22@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Subfield parcellation in 1.5 T and 2.6 mm Thickness {Disarmed}
The original MRI dims were: 256 256 124, and pixel dim: 0.9375 0.9375 1.5
These MRI scans are really old and predate DCMs so I'm not exactly sure how else to extract the data. But there's no complementary MR scans included in the FS processing either.
I have mixed sources saying different things for the thickness (I'm assuming the thickness is 1.5). I am told that the fov is 240, but I'm not sure how I can confirm.
Victor Zeng Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Keshavan Lab -- ________________________________ From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Iglesias Gonzalez, Juan E. JIGLESIASGONZALEZ@mgh.harvard.edu Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 2:55 PM To: Freesurfer support list Cc: joliehoang22@gmail.com Subject: [External] Re: [Freesurfer] Subfield parcellation in 1.5 T and 2.6 mm Thickness
Dear Victor, Sorry for the slow response. 1.5 T is not a problem. Do you have a companion 1mm T1? If no: then the main problem is the main recon stream. If yes: what is the in-plane resolution and orientation? If it’s a high-res coronal, it may help with the subfields. For the thalamus, I’d just use the 1 mm T1. Cheers, /Eugenio
Juan Eugenio Iglesias Senior research fellow CMIC (UCL), MGH (HMS) and CSAIL (MIT) MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "urldefense.proofpoint.com" claiming to be http://www.jeiglesias.comhttps://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jeiglesias.com&d=DwMGaQ&c=WknmpdNpvrlj2B5K1aWVqL1SOiF30547pqSuOmtwXTQ&r=ziAm16qmlGqGtX5PhV9Harh0DYcHWCNZ9xWh5fPQIi0&m=voAnzwScK604ztKqVYBBryJi5VYq9EKKaa37_nylwsg&s=wLZAs0haXb4e1DLcgEQSjWYwYLKZGsYHevdpYfExy94&e=
From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of "Zeng, Victor (BIDMC - Keshavan - Psychiatry)" vzeng@bidmc.harvard.edu Reply-To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Date: Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 17:56 To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Cc: "joliehoang22@gmail.com" joliehoang22@gmail.com Subject: [Freesurfer] Subfield parcellation in 1.5 T and 2.6 mm Thickness
Hi FS developers,
We were wondering whether a MRI scan that has 2.6 mm thickness + is 1.5 T would be sufficient for a subfield analysis (amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus).
Thanks, Victor Zeng Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Keshavan Lab --
________________________________
This message is intended for the use of the person(s) to whom it may be addressed. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, copying, or use of this information is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please permanently delete it and immediately notify the sender. Thank you.