In my case with the patients with chronic major depression,
VBM (tissue concentration) and modulated VBM (volume change) showed
more sensitive findings. In addition, VBM provide the brain tissue change of subcortical areas.
I think the controlling of TICV (total intracranial cavity volume) is important factor for
FreeSurfer analysis, but I failed it with Qdec with unkwon error. Maybe this is a problem
of my analysis.
Best regards!
Woo-Suk, Tae Ph.D.
Chuncheon, Korea
--- Original Message ---
From : "Pedro Paulo de Magalh?es Oliveira Junior"<ppj@netfilter.com.br>
To : "Bruce Fischl"<fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Date : 2008/05/15 목요일 오후 10:09:53
Subject : Resp.: [Freesurfer] Freesurfer vs. VBM
Martin,
I have an still unpublished work comparing VBM and FS in Alzheimer. I
can say to you that FS provides result much more accurate in this
area.
Best Regards,
Pedro Paulo Jr
2008/5/14, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>:
> Hi Martin,
>
> 1. FS uses geometry to do inter-subject registration, which in our
> experience results in a much better matching of homologous cortical
> regions than volumetric techniques.
>
> 2. FS allows you to look at the two components of volume separately
> (thickness and surface area). We have found that these two do not
> necessarily track one another, and in the worst case where one is
> increasing and the other decreasing the volume change can be 0.
>
> 3. The target we use for registration (the white matter surface geometry)
> is completely invariant to gm atrophy, so gm changes won't results in a
> different registration.
>
> Steve Smith and Morgan Hough at Oxford just did a pretty comprehensive
> study of this, so maybe they will chime in.
>
> cheers,
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, 14
> May 2008, Martin Kavec wrote:
>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since
>> that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness
>> assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially
>> providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to
>> a
>> reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could
>> provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
>>
>> I could think of the following:
>>
>> 1. Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
>>
>> 2. VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of
>> individual
>> anatomies
>>
>> 3. ????
>>
>> 4. ????
>>
>> 5. ????
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot in advance.
>>
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer