Dear FreeSurfer Experts
As in some other posts, I have also observed some differences between the two releases. The values from cuneus (thickness) are similar to the post from Ritobrato Datta, Ph.D. on 18 march.
But I also observed some differences in volume of right / left thalami. Did anybody observe such asymmetry?? I am now running analysis with patients and controls on data from 5.2.0 and got surprised with this asymmetry.
Here I am showing the average I obtained:
R PALLIDUM L PALLIDUM R THAL L THAL RH_CUNEUS LH_CUNEUS 5.1 (350 SUBJECTS) 1580 1688 6701 6970.31 1.845 1.857 5.2 (115 SUBJECTS, subgroup of 350) 1519 1367 6520 7401 2.42 2.40
Is there any approach to correct it on 5.2 ?? Thanks in advance clarissa
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the Freesurfer team will recommend you use v5.3.0. There are emails saying as much. Chris ________________________________________ From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu [freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] on behalf of clarissa yasuda [clayasuda@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:54 AM To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: [Freesurfer] different results between 5.1.0 and 5.2.0
Dear FreeSurfer Experts
As in some other posts, I have also observed some differences between the two releases. The values from cuneus (thickness) are similar to the post from Ritobrato Datta, Ph.D. on 18 march.
But I also observed some differences in volume of right / left thalami. Did anybody observe such asymmetry?? I am now running analysis with patients and controls on data from 5.2.0 and got surprised with this asymmetry.
Here I am showing the average I obtained:
R PALLIDUM L PALLIDUM R THAL L THAL RH_CUNEUS LH_CUNEUS 5.1 (350 SUBJECTS) 1580 1688 6701 6970.31 1.845 1.857
5.2 (115 SUBJECTS, subgroup of 350) 1519 1367 6520 7401 2.42 2.40
Is there any approach to correct it on 5.2 ?? Thanks in advance clarissa
yes, definitely for cortical surfaces Bruce On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Watson, Christopher wrote:
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the Freesurfer team will recommend you use v5.3.0. There are emails saying as much. Chris ________________________________________ From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu [freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] on behalf of clarissa yasuda [clayasuda@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:54 AM To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: [Freesurfer] different results between 5.1.0 and 5.2.0
Dear FreeSurfer Experts
As in some other posts, I have also observed some differences between the two releases. The values from cuneus (thickness) are similar to the post from Ritobrato Datta, Ph.D. on 18 march.
But I also observed some differences in volume of right / left thalami. Did anybody observe such asymmetry?? I am now running analysis with patients and controls on data from 5.2.0 and got surprised with this asymmetry.
Here I am showing the average I obtained:
R PALLIDUM L PALLIDUM R THAL L THAL RH_CUNEUS LH_CUNEUS5.1 (350 SUBJECTS) 1580 1688 6701 6970.31 1.845 1.857
5.2 (115 SUBJECTS, subgroup of 350) 1519 1367 6520 7401 2.42 2.40
Is there any approach to correct it on 5.2 ?? Thanks in advance clarissa
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Thank you for your reply!
I will try to run the new version, and also try to see what is the source for such differences. I guess the new release is the easiest solution.
clarissa
2013/7/25 Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
yes, definitely for cortical surfaces Bruce
On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, Watson, Christopher wrote:
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the Freesurfer team will recommend you
use v5.3.0. There are emails saying as much. Chris ______________________________**__________ From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.**harvard.edufreesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu[ freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.**harvard.edufreesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] on behalf of clarissa yasuda [clayasuda@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:54 AM To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: [Freesurfer] different results between 5.1.0 and 5.2.0
Dear FreeSurfer Experts
As in some other posts, I have also observed some differences between the two releases. The values from cuneus (thickness) are similar to the post from Ritobrato Datta, Ph.D. on 18 march.
But I also observed some differences in volume of right / left thalami. Did anybody observe such asymmetry?? I am now running analysis with patients and controls on data from 5.2.0 and got surprised with this asymmetry.
Here I am showing the average I obtained:
R PALLIDUM L PALLIDUM R THAL L THAL RH_CUNEUS LH_CUNEUS5.1 (350 SUBJECTS) 1580 1688 6701 6970.31 1.845 1.857
5.2 (115 SUBJECTS, subgroup of 350) 1519 1367 6520 7401 2.42 2.40
Is there any approach to correct it on 5.2 ?? Thanks in advance clarissa
______________________________**_________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.**edu/mailman/listinfo/**freesurferhttps://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/**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.
Hi Clarissa
have you visually inspected them? Does one version look more accurate than another to you? We do system tests on things like subcortical volumes before releasing a version and our tests show that the accuracy in these structures has not changed, so I'm not sure what the source of your differences is
cheers Bruce On Thu, 25 Jul 2013, clarissa yasuda wrote:
Dear FreeSurfer Experts
As in some other posts, I have also observed some differences between the two releases. The values from cuneus (thickness) are similar to the post from Ritobrato Datta, Ph.D. on 18 march.
But I also observed some differences in volume of right / left thalami. Did anybody observe such asymmetry?? I am now running analysis with patients and controls on data from 5.2.0 and got surprised with this asymmetry.
Here I am showing the average I obtained:
R PALLIDUM L PALLIDUM R THAL L THAL RH_CUNEUS LH_CUNEUS 5.1 (350 SUBJECTS) 1580 1688 6701 6970.31 1.845 1.857
5.2 (115 SUBJECTS, subgroup of 350) 1519 1367 6520 7401 2.42 2.40
Is there any approach to correct it on 5.2 ?? Thanks in advance clarissa
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Bruce Fischl -
clarissa yasuda -
Watson, Christopher