Hi Bruce,

I'm not sure if this qualifies as an outlier, but I do have one individual (and the age-matched control) who is much older than the rest (see attached). Do you think elimination of this subject could make the comparison possible?

Thanks,
Allie



On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
do you have a big outlier in the thickness measures? I didn't see one. It seems unlikely that all your subject have a defect in that spot

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012, Douglas N Greve wrote:

It means that any comparison depends on age. Eg, if you compare them at
an age where the lines cross, you will see no effect. If you compare
them at age=0 (what you were doing before), then you see a big effect.
Some statisticians will say that you cannot do the comparison in the
presence of an interaction.
dogu

Allie Rosen wrote:
So if my findings show that each group ages differently, does that
mean I can't compare them at all because I can't regress out age? Or
is there some way of comparing the groups despite this difference in
aging patterns?

Thanks again,
Allie

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Douglas N Greve
<greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:

   It might, don't know

   Allie Rosen wrote:

       Hi Doug,

       Yes, I think there actually may be a topologic defect in this
       area, although not directly where the cluster is (attached).
       Could this be the cause of the thickness result? If I go back
       and try to repair the defect, will that make the results more
       typical and, more importantly, correct?

       Thanks again,
       Allie



       On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Douglas N Greve
       <greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>> wrote:

          Hi Allie, yes, it means that each group is affected
       differently by
          age. The controls are increasing their thickness with age
       in this
          area (which seems strange, usually you expect general decreases
          with age). You might check the quality of the surfaces in
       this area.
          doug

          Allie Rosen wrote:

              Hi Doug,

              Thanks for the response. I've actually already run an
              interaction contrast and the same area is still significant
              (attached). I'm not sure how to interpret this either,
              unfortunately. Does it say that both groups are affected
              significantly differently by age? Can you tell me what it
              means? I'm having problems trying to do this myself.

              Thanks very much,
              Allie

              On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Douglas N Greve
              <greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
              <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

              <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>>> wrote:

                 Allie, to be more precise, you have selected
       control<patient
                 regressing out the effects of age. This second part
       is the key.
                  If you were to trace the regression lines back to
       age=0 (the
                 meaning of "regressing out age"), then
       control<patient by a
              wide
                 margin. But you have a problem here in that the
       regression
              lines
                 are crossed. This means that you have an interaction
              between age
                 and patient (no interaction means that the lines
       would be
                 parallel). An interaction means that you cannot
       assess whether
                 there is a difference in the thickness because this
       difference
                 changes depending upon the age. One thing you can
       try is to
                 actually compute an interaction contrast (something
       like [0 0 1
                 -1]). If it is significant in this area, then
       there's not
              much you
                 can do (though it may be interesting in itself). If
       it is not
                 significant, then you can switch to a DOSS model which
              forces the
                 lines to be parallel and makes the distance between the
              lines be
                 independent of age. Does this make sense?
                 doug



                 Allie Rosen wrote:

                     Hi All,

                     I'm having trouble reconciling the cluster
       colours with the
                     graph that can be made when you load the group
              descriptor file
                     and click on a point. I've attached an example.
                     In this study, I'm comparing thickness in a
       patient and
                     control group, with age regressed out. The contrast
              I've used
                     means that blue means control<patient. Therefore,
              patients are
                     thicker than controls. But in the graph,
       patients don't
              seem
                     to be thicker. I've seen the same results with
       red clusters
                     (i.e. they should mean that controls are thicker but
              the graph
                     shows otherwhise). Please let me know how I can
              interpret my
                     findings given the graph. Which group is
       actually thicker?

                     Thank you,
                     Allison


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     _______________________________________________
                     Freesurfer mailing list
                     Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
              <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
                     <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

              <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>>


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


                 --     Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
                 MGH-NMR Center
                 greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
              <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
              <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

              <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>>
                 Phone Number: 617-724-2358 <tel:617-724-2358>
       <tel:617-724-2358 <tel:617-724-2358>>
              <tel:617-724-2358 <tel:617-724-2358> <tel:617-724-2358
       <tel:617-724-2358>>> Fax: 617-726-7422 <tel:617-726-7422>
              <tel:617-726-7422 <tel:617-726-7422>>
                 <tel:617-726-7422 <tel:617-726-7422>
       <tel:617-726-7422 <tel:617-726-7422>>>


                 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
       <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
              <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
                 <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
                 FileDrop:
              www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
       <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>

        <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>

       <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>




                 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.




        ------------------------------------------------------------------------


          --     Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
          MGH-NMR Center
          greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
       <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
          Phone Number: 617-724-2358 <tel:617-724-2358>
       <tel:617-724-2358 <tel:617-724-2358>> Fax: 617-726-7422
       <tel:617-726-7422>
          <tel:617-726-7422 <tel:617-726-7422>>

          Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
       <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
          <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
          FileDrop:
       www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
       <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>
          <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>



       ------------------------------------------------------------------------


   --
   Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
   MGH-NMR Center
   greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
   Phone Number: 617-724-2358 <tel:617-724-2358> Fax: 617-726-7422
   <tel:617-726-7422>

   Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
   <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
   FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
   <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>