I tried that. Still no change.
And I tried running Qdec on all of my datasets. The problem occurs on all of them.
Xiaojing
2010/7/9 Douglas N Greve greve@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
That is strange. Can you change the FDR to something ridiculous like .5 and see if that changes things?
Xiaojing Long wrote:
Hi, all, I have some questions about performing the FDR correction in Qdec. I ran recon-all on all my subjects, then ran the surface group analysis following the Qdec tutorial. There are 3 factors in the qdec.table.dat file: age, gender and diagnosis. In the Design tab of Qdec, I selected the discrete factor 'diagnosis' for analysis. When the analysis was done, there is a description "Does the average thickness differ between Diseased and Normal?" in the Display tab. I think this should be the uncorrected map. Then I tried to run the FDR correction for multiple comparisons. I set the rate to be 0.05 and 0.01 respectively. However, I found no difference between the results using different rates. In the Terminal, the information are also the same: "MRISfdr2vwth(): np = 163842, nv = 163842 Found 107008 of 163842 vertices above FDR threshold (of 1.48619)" I wonder whether I did the analysis correctly. Are such results possible or reasonable? Thank you in advance. Best, Xiaojing
Freesurfer mailing list 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 Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html