I'm trying to post this again to the list, since the papers attached (in response to a post from Pedro) may be of interest to others, but they appear to have not been distributed to the overall list in my previous reply to Pedro. Does the list server perhaps reject certain posts based on number or size of attachments?

cheers, Mike H.

-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Michael Harms mharms@conte.wustl.edu To: Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior ppj@netfilter.com.br Cc: Freesurfer Mailing List freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] A methodological question Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:29:29 -0500

Hi Pedro, Attached are 4 papers that I'm aware of that explicitly compare aspects of FS to other approaches (Lee 2006; Tae 2008; Pengas 2008; Ju 2005)

Those particularly interested in TICV should take a look at the Pengas paper (which is timely, given the recent discussion on the list regarding the reliability of the "eTIV" measure).

cheers, Mike H.

On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 13:50 -0200, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:

Some weeks ago,I have posted here a compilation of the main papers that describe FreeSurfer implementation.

I was wondering if someone has researched in comparison between FreeSurfer methodology and other ones. (For instance: doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.056)

Best Regards

PPJ

--

Pedro Paulo de M. Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom

---

Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer