From: Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
To: "Jovicich, Jorge" <jorge.jovicich@unitn.it>
CC: Hai Pan <haipan0@gmail.com>, "freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu"
	<freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:16:42 +0100
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Are two T1 scans helpful for better recon-all?
Thread-Topic: [Freesurfer] Are two T1 scans helpful for better recon-all?
Thread-Index: Ac8LrMBvGlGrYiPkRyybpeJ5IkZCOQ==
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.03.1401070816320.16518@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
References: 
 <CAOGvNCntt1gRVeUGxT23TNZ3-HYPf+pLHpvd=Rxqm7try2mEQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LRH.2.03.1401061534120.16518@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
	<52CBD5FD.3010206@unitn.it>
In-Reply-To: <52CBD5FD.3010206@unitn.it>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Alpine 2.03 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

thanks Jorge,

nice to see that someone quantified this :)
Bruce
On Tue, 7 Jan 2014, Jorge=20
Jovicich wrote:

> Hi Hai,
>
> I agree with Bruce. In a recent paper=20
> (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23668971), for a variety of 3T vendor=
 and=20
> coil configurations, we confirmed previous findings that averaging two=20
> within-session uncorrupted MPRAGE scans did not significantly improve acr=
oss=20
> session reproducibility. In you case just choose the best one of the two.
>
> Is it worth acquiring two MPRAGES then? Tricky. Maybe you can go for only=
 a=20
> single acquistion if your MR operator is experienced to distinguish what=
=20
> level of artifact will be unacceptable for the target analysis and deserv=
es a=20
> repeated acquisition in case of unacceptable quality. Otherwise, one may =
fix=20
> two acquisitions  in the protocol and use the best of them. Nevertheless,=
 the=20
> operators should always be paying attention to the data quality during th=
e=20
> acquisition to decide if some type of intervention can help.
>
> cheers,
>    jorge
>
> On 06/01/2014 21:38, Bruce Fischl wrote:
>> Hi Hai
>>=20
>> it really depends on your coil and field strength, and whether either is
>> motion-corrupted. For 3T 32 channel data our somewhat ad hoc opinion is
>> that one is better than two (due to blurring induced by interpolation),
>> but it's really a case-by-case decision.
>>=20
>> sorry that there isn't an easier answer
>> Bruce
>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Hai Pan wrote:
>>=20
>>> Hello, FreeSurfer experts,
>>>=20
>>> We made two T1 scans for each subject at each session, will they be=20
>>> helpful
>>> for better recon-all results? Shall I average them and process the=20
>>> averaged
>>> T1 image? Let me know please.
>>>=20
>>> Thank you,
>>>=20
>>> Hai
>>>=20
>>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Freesurfer mailing list
>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>>=20
>>=20
>> The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom i=
t=20
>> is
>> addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the=20
>> e-mail
>> contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance=20
>> HelpLine at
>> http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you i=
n=20
>> error
>> but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and=
=20
>> properly
>> dispose of the e-mail.
>>=20
>
>