On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Hi Marie,
> 400 or 900 what? Not mm. How are you calculating thickness? I think in Diana's paper it was the radius of the inscribed circle on the medial axis, wasn't it?
> Bruce
>
>
> On Apr 12, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Marie Schaer <Marie.Schaer@unige.ch> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a quick question related to the corpus callosum segmentation: I read in previous posts that the reference explaining more about the CC subdivision in 5 segments was the one by Rosas et al, Neuroimage 2010. But in this publication, you show thickness
of the corpus callosum as the main outcome variable, with average values ranging from ~4 to 9 mm. And when I extract the values from the aseg.stats, in my dataset I rather get average values that are ranging between ~400 and 900 depending on the segment. Do
these values correspond to thickness in mm/100, or to area, or to something else? Is that a thickness measurement, or a surface area measurement?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance for your reply,
>>
>> Marie
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>