Dear all,
I've been reading the manuscript on version 6 freesurfer hippocampal subfield segmentation "A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI"
Can you please tell me if the type of sequence (e.g. coronal T2FLAIR vs T2STIR) and voxel sizes of .4x.4x2mm^3 vs .4x.4x4mm^3 really make a difference for this multi-modal algorithm? I previously ran recon-all on 1mm isotropic T1-w scans all with similar contrast.
It seems that the mesh fitting in version 6 is driven by the relation of the subfields to each other rather than by contrast or signal intensities; and also I notice the algorithm brings everything to isotropic space anyway.
Is this correct? Do you see a major methodological issue when using T2FLAIR (.4x.4x4mm^3) and T2STIR (.4x.4x2mm^3) subfield volumes together?
Thank you very much, Best wishes, Barbara
P.s. as a side-note, I've not noticed any major differences in subfield segmentations visually, when comparing segmentations via these two different T2 scans.
Dear all,
Would you please help me on this one? Thank you, best wishes, Barbara
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: hippo subfield segmentation new beta version (version 6) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:45:02 +0100 From: Barbara Kreilkamp bakk.hbg@gmail.com To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Dear all,
I've been reading the manuscript on version 6 freesurfer hippocampal subfield segmentation "A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI"
Can you please tell me if the type of sequence (e.g. coronal T2FLAIR vs T2STIR) and voxel sizes of .4x.4x2mm^3 vs .4x.4x4mm^3 really make a difference for this multi-modal algorithm? I previously ran recon-all on 1mm isotropic T1-w scans all with similar contrast.
It seems that the mesh fitting in version 6 is driven by the relation of the subfields to each other rather than by contrast or signal intensities; and also I notice the algorithm brings everything to isotropic space anyway.
Is this correct? Do you see a major methodological issue when using T2FLAIR (.4x.4x4mm^3) and T2STIR (.4x.4x2mm^3) subfield volumes together?
Thank you very much, Best wishes, Barbara
P.s. as a side-note, I've not noticed any major differences in subfield segmentations visually, when comparing segmentations via these two different T2 scans.
Hi Barbara, Sorry for the late response. - the type of sequence does not matter much as long as the contrast between gray and white matter is good. - the resolution is important, because you need to be able to see the internal thin layer of white matter in the hippocampus to be able to infer its internal structure; otherwise, the segmentation of the internal boundarie will indeed be dominated by the prior knowledge, rather than the intensities. - the algorithm operates at 0.33mm (isotropic) resolution; the segmentation is provided both at that resolution and at 1mm isotropic (FS space); please see the details in the wiki: https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/HippocampalSubfields If you send me the T2FLAIR and T2STIR images for a sample subject, I can take a look and give you more accurate answers ;-) Cheers, Eugenio
Juan Eugenio Iglesias Postdoctoral researcher BCBL www.jeiglesias.com www.bcbl.eu
Legal disclaimer/Aviso legal/Lege-oharra: www.bcbl.eu/legal-disclaimer
From: "Barbara Kreilkamp" bakk.hbg@googlemail.com To: "Freesurfer support list" freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 5:28:44 PM Subject: [Freesurfer] hippo subfield segmentation new beta version (version 6)
Dear all,
Would you please help me on this one? Thank you, best wishes, Barbara
-------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: hippo subfield segmentation new beta version (version 6) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 11:45:02 +0100 From: Barbara Kreilkamp bakk.hbg@gmail.com To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Dear all,
I've been reading the manuscript on version 6 freesurfer hippocampal subfield segmentation "A computational atlas of the hippocampal formation using ex vivo, ultra-high resolution MRI: application to adaptive segmentation of in vivo MRI"
Can you please tell me if the type of sequence (e.g. coronal T2FLAIR vs T2STIR) and voxel sizes of .4x.4x2mm^3 vs .4x.4x4mm^3 really make a difference for this multi-modal algorithm? I previously ran recon-all on 1mm isotropic T1-w scans all with similar contrast.
It seems that the mesh fitting in version 6 is driven by the relation of the subfields to each other rather than by contrast or signal intensities; and also I notice the algorithm brings everything to isotropic space anyway.
Is this correct? Do you see a major methodological issue when using T2FLAIR (.4x.4x4mm^3) and T2STIR (.4x.4x2mm^3) subfield volumes together?
Thank you very much, Best wishes, Barbara
P.s. as a side-note, I've not noticed any major differences in subfield segmentations visually, when comparing segmentations via these two different T2 scans.
_______________________________________________ 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@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu