Oops -- I missed that aspect of your question. Yes, that would make sense, and is precisely what we did in a 2010 paper in Brit J Psychiatry (196:150-7). Although the measures in that paper were not FS-based, we used appropriate "global" volume, area, and thickness measures to covary for each respective type of measure (see paper for details).
As an aside, are you analyzing the area of parcellated regions, or are you doing a vertex-wise "area" analysis in QDEC. If the latter, you should be aware that there are issues as to whether the vertex-wise area values are a meaningful, interpretable measure since the area of any given triangle of the mesh is more reflective of the mesh tesselation than an intrinsic property of that subject's brain (see previous posts regarding that as well).
cheers, -MH
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:39 +0100, Tetiana Dadakova wrote:
Thank you Michael,
I was wondering about a nuisance specific to area analysis. I understand using ICV or brain volume in volumetric analysis, but for area analysis something like "overall pial area" seems more logical to me. That is why I am curious if there is any literature about area (surface) analysis in particular. Am I at the right track at all?
Best wishes, Tanja.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Michael Harms mharms@conte.wustl.edu wrote:
Typically one uses either a measure of "brain volume" or an estimate of intracranial volume -- the choice depends on whether or not you want to control for whole brain atrophy when making your interpretations, in which case you would use "brain volume" rather than ICV. There have been numerous posts to the list on this issue, so try searching the archives.
As for articles, you could start with the ones below.
cheers, -MH
1: Mathalon DH, Sullivan EV, Rawles JM, Pfefferbaum A. Correction for head size in brain-imaging measurements. Psychiatry Res. 1993 Jun;50(2):121-39. Erratum in: Psychiatry Res 1994 Sep;55(3):179. PubMed PMID: 8378488.
2: Arndt S, Cohen G, Alliger RJ, Swayze VW 2nd, Andreasen NC. Problems with ratio and proportion measures of imaged cerebral structures. Psychiatry Res. 1991 May;40(1):79-89. PubMed PMID: 1946842.
3: O'Brien LM, Ziegler DA, Deutsch CK, Kennedy DN, Goldstein JM, Seidman LJ, Hodge S, Makris N, Caviness V, Frazier JA, Herbert MR. Adjustment for whole brain and cranial size in volumetric brain studies: a review of common adjustment factors and statistical methods. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2006 May-Jun;14(3):141-51. Review. PubMed PMID: 16787886.
4: O'Brien LM, Ziegler DA, Deutsch CK, Frazier JA, Herbert MR, Locascio JJ. Statistical adjustments for brain size in volumetric neuroimaging studies: some practical implications in methods. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Aug 30;193(2):113-22. PubMed PMID: 21684724.
5: Sanfilipo MP, Benedict RH, Zivadinov R, Bakshi R. Correction for intracranial volume in analysis of whole brain atrophy in multiple sclerosis: the proportion vs. residual method. Neuroimage. 2004 Aug;22(4):1732-43. PubMed PMID: 15275929.
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 12:26 +0100, Tetiana Dadakova wrote:
Dear FreeSurfer experts,
I have a question regarding pial area analysis.
What is commonly used as a nuisance variable to correct for brain size difference between groups (e.g men vs women)? Can you suggest any article where this is discussed or has been done?
Thank you, Tanja. _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
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.
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer