> Hi Bruce,
>
> We are working with a cohort of several hundred subjects, and all of the
> data has already been processed using the last version of FS. It would
> take
> quite a while for us to go through all of that data again, so we're trying
> to figure out if it would be okay to go ahead and use the longitudinal
> stream from 5.1 (sorry, not 5.0) using our current data, or if we really
> should, in fact, go back and start from scratch. Does that make sense?
> Sorry
> if I'm being unclear...
>
> Erica
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Bruce Fischl
> <
fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote:
>
>> Hi Erica,
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. Why not just run it through all the way? And
>> we
>> would *strongly* recommend using the 5.1 longitudinal instead of 5.0
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Bruce
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Erica Griffith wrote:
>>
>> Alright, thanks. Would you recommend against using the new longitudinal
>>> stream with data generated from a previous version though? That is my
>>> main
>>> question.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Bruce Fischl
>>> <
fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>> no, there are other differences as well.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2011, Erica Griffith wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Does anyone have experience running a longitudinal
>>> analysis in version 5.0,
>>> using .mgz files generated from the last version of
>>> freesurfer? My
>>> understanding is that the only major differences between
>>> the previous and
>>> current versions were in the longitudinal stream. Any
>>> input would be
>>> appreciated! Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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