1 would be better but 2 would be sufficient as long as X, Y and Z don't vary too much On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, Ashley Shurick wrote:
Hi Bruce (and others), We can balance the numbers to allow the same number in each configuration. But just to clarify, are you saying we should do, for example, 10 patient scan 1, 10 patient scan 2, 10 patient scan 3, and 10 HC scan 1, 10 HC scan 2, 10 HC scan 3, to perfectly balance everything out? Or do we just need to have X patient and X HC in scan 1, Y patient and Y HC with scan 2, and Z patient and Z HC with scanning parameter 3?
Thank you for your assistance.
Ashley
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: Hi Ashley
that is probably trouble unless your groups are perfectly balanced across the datasets (that is, the same # in each group were scanned on each configuration). cheers Bruce On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, Ashley Shurick wrote: Hi, I'm interested in comparing CT differences between 2 different groups, and in order to increase my sample size I'm contemplating combining 3 datasets with different scanning parameters. Some scans were collected with a 3T1 with fmri head coil, while others were collected with a 3T2 magnet with 8 channel head coil. The scans also differ in FOV (25.6 vs 22cm) and resolution. Thank you in advance for your support. Ashley --Ashley A. ShurickPh.D. Candidate Department of Psychology Stanford University
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.
-- Ashley A. ShurickPh.D. Candidate Department of Psychology Stanford University