Greetings,
I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed, but most seem like they could be made better by a tweak here or there. At what point would I just be adding randomness by manually editing?
About what percent of a given dataset would you expect to manually edit?
Much appreciated, -Eric Cunningham
Hi Eric
what version are you running? Bruce On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Greetings,
I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed, but most seem like they could be made better by a tweak here or there. At what point would I just be adding randomness by manually editing?
About what percent of a given dataset would you expect to manually edit?
Much appreciated, -Eric Cunningham
Hi Bruce, I am running version 5.10 Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Eric
what version are you running? Bruce
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Greetings,
I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed, but most seem like they could be made better by a tweak here or there. At what point would I just be adding randomness by manually editing?
About what percent of a given dataset would you expect to manually edit?
Much appreciated, -Eric Cunningham
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/**compliancelinehttp://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.
I think 5.1 specifically has a problem with Talairach accuracy (is that right Nick?). Should be much better with the next release On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hi Bruce, I am running version 5.10 Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: Hi Eric
what version are you running? Bruce On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote: Greetings, I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed, but most seem like they could be made better by a tweak here or there. At what point would I just be adding randomness by manually editing? About what percent of a given dataset would you expect to manually edit? Much appreciated, -Eric CunninghamThe 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.
Hi all, Ah, good to know that there is a Talairach accuracy problem. What have other groups been doing about this? Do you think it makes sense to manually edit much of our data? From what we've seen so far (registering to ages 3-9 so more errors expected) about 25% of our data have the registration sufficiently far off to push the TARGET volume (our subject's volume and the green lines in the pictures http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/Talairach) outside of the skull. Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
I think 5.1 specifically has a problem with Talairach accuracy (is that right Nick?). Should be much better with the next release
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hi Bruce,
I am running version 5.10 Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
wrote: Hi Eric
what version are you running? Bruce On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote: Greetings, I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed, but most seem like they could be made better by a tweak here or there. At what point would I just be adding randomness by manually editing? About what percent of a given dataset would you expect to manually edit? Much appreciated, -Eric CunninghamThe 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/**compliancelinehttp://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.
Would you recommend subjects through autorecon1 in freesurfer 5.0 and then through autorecon2 and autorecon3 in 5.1? Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Eric Cunningham etc42@hawaii.edu wrote:
Hi all, Ah, good to know that there is a Talairach accuracy problem. What have other groups been doing about this? Do you think it makes sense to manually edit much of our data? From what we've seen so far (registering to ages 3-9 so more errors expected) about 25% of our data have the registration sufficiently far off to push the TARGET volume (our subject's volume and the green lines in the pictures http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/FsTutorial/Talairach) outside of the skull. Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
I think 5.1 specifically has a problem with Talairach accuracy (is that right Nick?). Should be much better with the next release
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote:
Hi Bruce,
I am running version 5.10 Thanks, -Eric
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Bruce Fischl < fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: Hi Eric
what version are you running? Bruce On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Eric Cunningham wrote: Greetings, I am trying to determine how bad a talairach.xfm registration has to be to warrant a manual edit. I have found that even minor edits can have noticable (9%) effects on major subcortical volumes (such as thalamus or hippocampus). Very few registrations seem to have completely failed, but most seem like they could be made better by a tweak here or there. At what point would I just be adding randomness by manually editing? About what percent of a given dataset would you expect to manually edit? Much appreciated, -Eric CunninghamThe 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/**compliancelinehttp://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@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Bruce Fischl -
Eric Cunningham