1) If you are ONLY interested in the difference between the 2 pathological
groups, then you can include just those two. If you are also interested in
comparing either of those with control, then I'd personally opt for a single
model that includes all 3 groups, in which you investigate the difference
between groups using appropriate contrasts.
2) If you want to control for all 3 covariates simultaneously, then all of
them should be included (as separate, de-meaned columns) in the design
matrix.
--
Michael Harms, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conte Center for the Neuroscience of Mental Disorders
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Psychiatry, Box 8134
660 South Euclid Ave. Tel: 314-747-6173
St. Louis, MO 63110 Email: mharms@wustl.edu
From:
stdp82@virgilio.it
Reply-To:
stdp82@virgilio.it
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:15 PM
To:
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: [Freesurfer] R: Re: R: Re: cortical thickness normalization
I'm sorry.
I'm performing the cortical thickness analysis on three groups (2
pathological groups and 1 control group).
I'm interested mainly to the differences between the two groups of disease.
These are my questions:
1- Is qdec a good option for my study design or I should use other glm
option that contains all 3 groups in the same matrix design?
2-As you suggest I'm using always mean cortical thickness as nuisance factor
in qdec.
If I'd like added 2 or more covariates, is correct if I add each covariate
separately in my matrix.dat or I should add all covariates together in my
matrix.dat?
Thanks,
Stefano
----Messaggio originale----
Da: mharms@conte.wustl.edu
Data: 4-apr-2013 18.23
A:
stdp82@virgilio.it,
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Ogg: Re: [Freesurfer] R: Re: cortical thickness normalization
Hi,
Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking.
-MH
--
Michael Harms, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conte Center for the Neuroscience of Mental Disorders
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Psychiatry, Box 8134
660 South Euclid Ave. Tel: 314-747-6173
St. Louis, MO 63110 Email: mharms@wustl.edu
From:
stdp82@virgilio.it
Reply-To:
stdp82@virgilio.it
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 9:31 AM
To:
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: [Freesurfer] R: Re: cortical thickness normalization
Thank you very much, Michael!
I have just an other important question, please.
I'm performing cortical thickness analysis on three groups. One of this is a
control group and I'm using it as support because I'm interested only to
difference between the two groups of disease.
These are my questions:
1- Is correct if I'm applying qdec, testing before a) disease 1 vs disease
2; b) controls vs disease 1 and c) controls vs disease 2.
2- Addictionally to cortical thickness that I'm reporting always as nuisance
factor in qdec, I'd test some covariates.
Taking in account my study design, could I test each covariates separately
on my model using qdec?
Thanks,
Stefano
----Messaggio originale----
Da: mharms@conte.wustl.edu
Data: 4-apr-2013 15.45
A:
stdp82@virgilio.it,
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Ogg: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness normalization
If you're studying thickness, I'm a fan of using mean cortical thickness as
the covariate (since thickness is what you're studying). I've posted on
this in the past.
cheers,
-MH
--
Michael Harms, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conte Center for the Neuroscience of Mental Disorders
Washington University School of Medicine
Department of Psychiatry, Box 8134
660 South Euclid Ave. Tel: 314-747-6173
St. Louis, MO 63110 Email: mharms@wustl.edu
From:
stdp82@virgilio.it
Reply-To:
stdp82@virgilio.it
Date: Thursday, April 4, 2013 7:21 AM
To:
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness normalization
Hi list,
I'm reading a lot of post on this list about cortical thickness
normalization.
I' m noting very different results on my data when I use mean thickness or
ICV as nuisance factor than no factor.
I'm confuse on this topic, could you advise the best way, please?
Thanks,
Stefano
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listi
nfo/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/listi
nfo/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 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.