Thank you very much for your reply (and apologies for taking so
long to repsond to it - I have been on annual leave for a
month).
I have checked the registrations and they look okay. Regarding
the software, both were run on Python on a supercomputer using a
very similar script, so I don’t think that is the cause of the
differences.
Thanks for explaining how the segmentation works, it makes sense
that the ROIs are very small and therefore the changes seen
could be very large. I am wondering whether you have any
recommendations of which version to use moving forward, as my
results (between groups) are different depending on which
version of FreeSurfer I use. Do you believe version 8 is better
for this hippocampal and amygdala segmentation as it uses
synthseg? Or would it be best to move forward with the version 7
results as this version has been used and published innumerable
times and therefore is the most validated? Alternatively, would
you suggest running it through a different version altogether,
such as 7.4.1 and determining which these results are most
similar to?
Thank you very much for your response and assistance again, I
really appreciate it.
Hi,
sorry for the delay. For etiv, the algorithm depends on the
linear registration of the brain to the mni305 (ie, it is not
based on a segmentation to compute the TIV -- that is what the
stiv and it is probably better than the etiv). With v8, we
changed algorithms for this computation, and so it is not
surprising that there are differences. In my evaluation, the
difference was typically about 5%. It looks like you are
seeing a much larger difference. Have you checked the
registrations to see if they look ok?
For the others, what command did you use? We actually have two
versions of this software (one matlab-based and one python),
so I want to make sure you are not comparing against those two
versions. The underlying software for the hippo/amyg subfields
did not change from 7 to 8. However, those segmentation make
use of the hippo and amyg segmentations in the aseg, which is
now performed by synthseg instead of the gca. My guess is that
this is the source of the change. Why is the change so big?
Not sure, but these segmentations are very difficult as there
is not really any contrast at the edge of the subfield ROIs
and the ROIs are very small. Because the ROIs are so small, it
does not take much of a change to get big volume changes.
On 8/10/2025 11:47 PM, Hana McMahon
wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Hi Douglas,
Thank you for your reply. The regions I am primarily
interested in are the segmentations of the Hippocampus and
Amygdala, as well as eTIV as a covariate. However, I will
also run exploratory analyses on the whole brain, as the
study is a clinical group comparison.
Regarding some numbers, please see attached (and in the
.zip):
-
roi_proportional_changes: for each ROI
(whole brain) I ran the formula mean(abs((v8 - v7) / v7)
to determine the average absolute proportional
difference between the versions, which is where I got
the ~ 1-200% differences between versions in different
ROIs
-
etiv_differences: this is the eTIV
(estimated total intracranial volume) for each
participant in my study directly taken from the output
of each version of FreeSurfer
-
amyg_differences: this is an example of an
amygdala subfield (Medial Nucleus LH) for each
participant in my study directly taken from the output
of each version of FreeSurfer
If you could please kindly explain a bit more about why
there are big differences between v7 and v8 that would be
very helpful, as I am currently not sure which version to
move forward with, as the findings are completely different.
I was under the impression that v8 is meant to be better,
particularly for segmentation, however I am worried about
publishing and reviewers, particularly if the outcomes
cannot be compared to earlier versions and therefore the
current literature.
Thank you again for your help and response.
Kindest,
Hana
Please
be (much) more specific. What are the regions that you are
finding changes in? Can you provide some numbers? There
are big differences between v8 and v7 so it does not
totally surprise me.
On 8/7/2025 1:40 AM, Hana
McMahon wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Hi,
I’ve processed the same set of T1‐weighted scans with
both FreeSurfer v7.2.0 and the newer v8.0.0. When I
compare the regional stats (aseg + subfield tables), the
absolute proportional differences are surprisingly large
(anywhere from ~1 % up to nearly 200 %, depending on the
structure).
I first noticed the issue while running ANCOVAs: with
the v8 outputs, estimated total intracranial volume
(eTIV) is highly significant in every model, whereas the
v7 results (using identical R code and covariates) show
a very different pattern.
I am wondering:
-
Are these version‐to‐version shifts expected, given
the changes in v8?
-
Have others reported similar magnitude differences,
particularly for eTIV and subcortical/hippocampal
measures?
-
Are large shifts expected from run-to-run as well?
-
Any insight would be greatly appreciated, as I am
concerned by the magnitude of the differences I am
seeing between versions, which are significantly
changing my results.
Thanks for your time.
Kindest,
Hana
Confidential
communication - This email and any files
transmitted with it are confidential and are intended
solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, please be advised that you have received
this email in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this email and any
file attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this email in error, please notify me
immediately by return email and destroy this email.