This is just a thought, but is this issue mitigated to some degree if you can show that the regions in which you are interested meet a certain minimum signal to noise ratio? Or maybe a more stringent requirement would be necessary, such that the SNR of the ROIs don't differ significantly?
Always wondered about this.
Anthony
On 12/20/10 9:26 AM, Martin Reuter wrote:
Hi Diederick,
In a longitudinal study you need to ensure identical acquisition and processing, else you'll introduce a systematic bias. Some of my recent analyses indicate that even updating the software on the scanner can bias your results. Hardware changes are worse.
Best Martin
On Dec 20, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Diederick Stoffersd.stoffers@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I have a dataset with AD patients that were scanned twice, once at 1.5T and once at 3T at an interval of a few years. The ICV values are lower for almost all subjects at timepoint two (FS 5.0). Isn't ICV in the later FS versions supposed to be independent of brain volume as it is based on a scaling factor derived from the Tailairach transform of the skull? Many thanks!
Cheers,
Diederick _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
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.