Hello, I have worked quite a bit in the past with fs 5.3 on datasets which required a fair number of manual edits to the white matter volume in order to correct defects in the white matter surface. Typically, these edits take the form of removing voxels in the wm.mgz volume that have been incorrectly identified as white matter, usually near the pial surface caused by intensity artifacts resulting from motion. My experience in the past is that generating the white matter surface after edits to the wm.mgz volume will reliably change the geometry of the resulting surfaces.
However, on my current dataset, 1.5T adolescent brains with pervasive motion artifacts that do not meet the threshold for unusable data, absolutely no intervention I have done on the wm.mgz volume has any impact at all on the generation of the white matter surfaces. I am really very puzzled by this. All of the files that result from wm.mgz reflect the edits, however the aseg does not.
The resulting white matter surfaces always follow the aseg white matter definitions and never the wm.mgz edits. I feel as if there might be something I am missing but this protocol has reliably been used to do white matter edits in the past. I thought it may be an issue with fs 6 or the long stream, but I have tried the same edits in 5.3, 6, long and cross streams and nothing at all has worked.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or perhaps a hint that I am overlooking something common?
Thanks,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP Research Technician, Posner Lab Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 New York, NY 10032 PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
Hi David
if you upload a subject to our ftp site and give us enough detail to replicate what you tried we will take a look
cheers Bruce On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, David Semanek wrote:
Hello, I have worked quite a bit in the past with fs 5.3 on datasets which required a fair number of manual edits to the white matter volume in order to correct defects in the white matter surface. Typically, these edits take the form of removing voxels in the wm.mgz volume that have been incorrectly identified as white matter, usually near the pial surface caused by intensity artifacts resulting from motion. My experience in the past is that generating the white matter surface after edits to the wm.mgz volume will reliably change the geometry of the resulting surfaces.
However, on my current dataset, 1.5T adolescent brains with pervasive motion artifacts that do not meet the threshold for unusable data, absolutely no intervention I have done on the wm.mgz volume has any impact at all on the generation of the white matter surfaces. I am really very puzzled by this. All of the files that result from wm.mgz reflect the edits, however the aseg does not.
The resulting white matter surfaces always follow the aseg white matter definitions and never the wm.mgz edits. I feel as if there might be something I am missing but this protocol has reliably been used to do white matter edits in the past. I thought it may be an issue with fs 6 or the long stream, but I have tried the same edits in 5.3, 6, long and cross streams and nothing at all has worked.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or perhaps a hint that I am overlooking something common?
Thanks,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP
Research Technician, Posner Lab
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Columbia University Medical Center
New York State Psychiatric Institute
1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424
New York, NY 10032
PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
Thanks, I have uploaded the cross and long stream processing from one subject which requires numerous white matter edits to correct defects in the white matter surfaces; the file is on the ftp server as dsemanek.zip.
Both of the cross subject folders, s02_t1 and s02_t2 have had edits done to both the brainmask as well as the wm files, and autorecon2-wm and autorecon-3 have been run on them, as well as the long folder for the first time point, s02_t1.long.s02_base.
It was in working with the rerun results of s02_t1.long.s02_base that I noticed the white matter surfaces after being regenerated with the edited wm.mgz did not reflect any of the edits. The easiest way to see this is to load the wm.mgz with the white matter surfaces and scroll through the slices, there are numerous areas where the contours of the white matter surfaces do not follow the voxels of the wm.mgz volume, mostly near what should be identified as hyperintense gray matter. I’m fairly certain the white matter surfaces didn’t change at all after running autorecon2-wm with the wm.mgz edits.
Thanks for taking a look at our data.
Best,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP Research Technician, Posner Lab Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 New York, NY 10032 PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
On 3/12/17, 4:13 PM, "Bruce Fischl" fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi David
if you upload a subject to our ftp site and give us enough detail to replicate what you tried we will take a look
cheers Bruce On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, David Semanek wrote:
> > Hello, I have worked quite a bit in the past with fs 5.3 on datasets which > required a fair number of manual edits to the white matter volume in order > to correct defects in the white matter surface. Typically, these edits take > the form of removing voxels in the wm.mgz volume that have been incorrectly > identified as white matter, usually near the pial surface caused by > intensity artifacts resulting from motion. My experience in the past is that > generating the white matter surface after edits to the wm.mgz volume will > reliably change the geometry of the resulting surfaces. > > > > However, on my current dataset, 1.5T adolescent brains with pervasive motion > artifacts that do not meet the threshold for unusable data, absolutely no > intervention I have done on the wm.mgz volume has any impact at all on the > generation of the white matter surfaces. I am really very puzzled by this. > All of the files that result from wm.mgz reflect the edits, however the aseg > does not. > > > > The resulting white matter surfaces always follow the aseg white matter > definitions and never the wm.mgz edits. I feel as if there might be > something I am missing but this protocol has reliably been used to do white > matter edits in the past. I thought it may be an issue with fs 6 or the long > stream, but I have tried the same edits in 5.3, 6, long and cross streams > and nothing at all has worked. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions, or perhaps a hint that I am overlooking > something common? > > > > Thanks, > > > > David P. Semanek, HCISPP > > Research Technician, Posner Lab > > Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry > > Columbia University Medical Center > > New York State Psychiatric Institute > > 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 > > New York, NY 10032 > > PH: (646) 774-5885 > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended > recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally > privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in > error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are > strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or > copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN > E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > > > >
Hi David,
first I think it makes sense to - replicate the problem in the regular (cross sectional) stream - then fix it there (if it exists) or look for it in long.
So you see the problem in the S02_t1 and S02_t2 also, right?
Best, Martin
On 13 Mar 2017, at 16:55, David Semanek SemanekD@nyspi.columbia.edu wrote:
Thanks, I have uploaded the cross and long stream processing from one subject which requires numerous white matter edits to correct defects in the white matter surfaces; the file is on the ftp server as dsemanek.zip.
Both of the cross subject folders, s02_t1 and s02_t2 have had edits done to both the brainmask as well as the wm files, and autorecon2-wm and autorecon-3 have been run on them, as well as the long folder for the first time point, s02_t1.long.s02_base.
It was in working with the rerun results of s02_t1.long.s02_base that I noticed the white matter surfaces after being regenerated with the edited wm.mgz did not reflect any of the edits. The easiest way to see this is to load the wm.mgz with the white matter surfaces and scroll through the slices, there are numerous areas where the contours of the white matter surfaces do not follow the voxels of the wm.mgz volume, mostly near what should be identified as hyperintense gray matter. I’m fairly certain the white matter surfaces didn’t change at all after running autorecon2-wm with the wm.mgz edits.
Thanks for taking a look at our data.
Best,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP Research Technician, Posner Lab Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 New York, NY 10032 PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
On 3/12/17, 4:13 PM, "Bruce Fischl" fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi David
if you upload a subject to our ftp site and give us enough detail to replicate what you tried we will take a look
cheers Bruce On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, David Semanek wrote:
Hello, I have worked quite a bit in the past with fs 5.3 on datasets which required a fair number of manual edits to the white matter volume in order to correct defects in the white matter surface. Typically, these edits take the form of removing voxels in the wm.mgz volume that have been incorrectly identified as white matter, usually near the pial surface caused by intensity artifacts resulting from motion. My experience in the past is that generating the white matter surface after edits to the wm.mgz volume will reliably change the geometry of the resulting surfaces.
However, on my current dataset, 1.5T adolescent brains with pervasive motion artifacts that do not meet the threshold for unusable data, absolutely no intervention I have done on the wm.mgz volume has any impact at all on the generation of the white matter surfaces. I am really very puzzled by this. All of the files that result from wm.mgz reflect the edits, however the aseg does not.
The resulting white matter surfaces always follow the aseg white matter definitions and never the wm.mgz edits. I feel as if there might be something I am missing but this protocol has reliably been used to do white matter edits in the past. I thought it may be an issue with fs 6 or the long stream, but I have tried the same edits in 5.3, 6, long and cross streams and nothing at all has worked.
Does anyone have any suggestions, or perhaps a hint that I am overlooking something common?
Thanks,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP
Research Technician, Posner Lab
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Columbia University Medical Center
New York State Psychiatric Institute
1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424
New York, NY 10032
PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Hi David
Try editing the base wm.mgz first instead of editing the long and cross wm files. Rerun autorecon2-wm and autorecon3 for the base dir, then completely rerun the longitudinals. The long surfaces are initialized from the base surfaces, so this could be why your wm fixes seem to have no effect.
You can find more info here:
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/LongitudinalEdits#CheatSheethttps://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/LongitudinalEdits
If editing the base doesn't solve the problem, you can send me the commands you ran in order and I can look into this further.
best, Andrew
________________________________ From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of David Semanek SemanekD@nyspi.columbia.edu Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:55 AM To: Bruce Fischl; Freesurfer support list Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] wm.mgz Edits Ignored With Current Dataset in FS 5.3/6 Cross and Long Streams
Thanks, I have uploaded the cross and long stream processing from one subject which requires numerous white matter edits to correct defects in the white matter surfaces; the file is on the ftp server as dsemanek.zip.
Both of the cross subject folders, s02_t1 and s02_t2 have had edits done to both the brainmask as well as the wm files, and autorecon2-wm and autorecon-3 have been run on them, as well as the long folder for the first time point, s02_t1.long.s02_base.
It was in working with the rerun results of s02_t1.long.s02_base that I noticed the white matter surfaces after being regenerated with the edited wm.mgz did not reflect any of the edits. The easiest way to see this is to load the wm.mgz with the white matter surfaces and scroll through the slices, there are numerous areas where the contours of the white matter surfaces do not follow the voxels of the wm.mgz volume, mostly near what should be identified as hyperintense gray matter. I’m fairly certain the white matter surfaces didn’t change at all after running autorecon2-wm with the wm.mgz edits.
Thanks for taking a look at our data.
Best,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP Research Technician, Posner Lab Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 New York, NY 10032 PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
On 3/12/17, 4:13 PM, "Bruce Fischl" fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi David
if you upload a subject to our ftp site and give us enough detail to replicate what you tried we will take a look
cheers Bruce On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, David Semanek wrote:
> > Hello, I have worked quite a bit in the past with fs 5.3 on datasets which > required a fair number of manual edits to the white matter volume in order > to correct defects in the white matter surface. Typically, these edits take > the form of removing voxels in the wm.mgz volume that have been incorrectly > identified as white matter, usually near the pial surface caused by > intensity artifacts resulting from motion. My experience in the past is that > generating the white matter surface after edits to the wm.mgz volume will > reliably change the geometry of the resulting surfaces. > > > > However, on my current dataset, 1.5T adolescent brains with pervasive motion > artifacts that do not meet the threshold for unusable data, absolutely no > intervention I have done on the wm.mgz volume has any impact at all on the > generation of the white matter surfaces. I am really very puzzled by this. > All of the files that result from wm.mgz reflect the edits, however the aseg > does not. > > > > The resulting white matter surfaces always follow the aseg white matter > definitions and never the wm.mgz edits. I feel as if there might be > something I am missing but this protocol has reliably been used to do white > matter edits in the past. I thought it may be an issue with fs 6 or the long > stream, but I have tried the same edits in 5.3, 6, long and cross streams > and nothing at all has worked. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions, or perhaps a hint that I am overlooking > something common? > > > > Thanks, > > > > David P. Semanek, HCISPP > > Research Technician, Posner Lab > > Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry > > Columbia University Medical Center > > New York State Psychiatric Institute > > 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 > > New York, NY 10032 > > PH: (646) 774-5885 > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended > recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally > privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in > error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are > strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or > copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN > E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer Freesurfer Info Page - Harvard Universityhttps://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Freesurfer Archives. A searchable archive which of messages PRIOR to March 2004 is at ...
Andrew, thanks for your response. I am still not seeing the white matter edit performance that I am expecting, or that I have seen from using the cross stream on 5.3 in the past with a different dataset.
I started with a new subject with two timepoints. I ran recon-all on both for the cross stream with no edits, and then ran the base. I edited the wm.mgz for the base, then ran “recon-all –autorecon2-wm –autorecon3 –base xx_base –tp xx_t1 –tp xx_t2”. I noticed the surfaces didn’t really change in the base, but I went ahead and ran the two long runs using “recon-all –all –long xx_tx xx_base” and although there are minor differences in the base and time point surfaces, the white matter edits I did on the base were largely ignored, and none of them were included in the time point long run wm.mgz files.
I am tempted to try these same analyses using Linux (I am running this on OSX 10.11 currently), as I experienced a completely different response from the surface generation modules to my edits in the past when using Linux. I’m thinking this is a real long shot, but I cannot otherwise figure out why the software would be behaving so differently from my past experiences.
Any thoughts? Thanks!
Best,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP Research Technician, Posner Lab Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 New York, NY 10032 PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: "Hoopes, Andrew" AHOOPES@mgh.harvard.edu Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 12:47 PM To: Freesurfer support list freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu, David Semanek SemanekD@nyspi.columbia.edu Cc: Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] wm.mgz Edits Ignored With Current Dataset in FS 5.3/6 Cross and Long Streams
Hi David
Try editing the base wm.mgz first instead of editing the long and cross wm files. Rerun autorecon2-wm and autorecon3 for the base dir, then completely rerun the longitudinals. The long surfaces are initialized from the base surfaces, so this could be why your wm fixes seem to have no effect.
You can find more info here:
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/LongitudinalEdits#CheatSheethttps://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/LongitudinalEdits
If editing the base doesn't solve the problem, you can send me the commands you ran in order and I can look into this further.
best, Andrew
________________________________ From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of David Semanek SemanekD@nyspi.columbia.edu Sent: Monday, March 13, 2017 11:55 AM To: Bruce Fischl; Freesurfer support list Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] wm.mgz Edits Ignored With Current Dataset in FS 5.3/6 Cross and Long Streams
Thanks, I have uploaded the cross and long stream processing from one subject which requires numerous white matter edits to correct defects in the white matter surfaces; the file is on the ftp server as dsemanek.zip.
Both of the cross subject folders, s02_t1 and s02_t2 have had edits done to both the brainmask as well as the wm files, and autorecon2-wm and autorecon-3 have been run on them, as well as the long folder for the first time point, s02_t1.long.s02_base.
It was in working with the rerun results of s02_t1.long.s02_base that I noticed the white matter surfaces after being regenerated with the edited wm.mgz did not reflect any of the edits. The easiest way to see this is to load the wm.mgz with the white matter surfaces and scroll through the slices, there are numerous areas where the contours of the white matter surfaces do not follow the voxels of the wm.mgz volume, mostly near what should be identified as hyperintense gray matter. I’m fairly certain the white matter surfaces didn’t change at all after running autorecon2-wm with the wm.mgz edits.
Thanks for taking a look at our data.
Best,
David P. Semanek, HCISPP Research Technician, Posner Lab Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Columbia University Medical Center New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 New York, NY 10032 PH: (646) 774-5885
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your cooperation.
On 3/12/17, 4:13 PM, "Bruce Fischl" fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi David
if you upload a subject to our ftp site and give us enough detail to replicate what you tried we will take a look
cheers Bruce On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, David Semanek wrote:
> > Hello, I have worked quite a bit in the past with fs 5.3 on datasets which > required a fair number of manual edits to the white matter volume in order > to correct defects in the white matter surface. Typically, these edits take > the form of removing voxels in the wm.mgz volume that have been incorrectly > identified as white matter, usually near the pial surface caused by > intensity artifacts resulting from motion. My experience in the past is that > generating the white matter surface after edits to the wm.mgz volume will > reliably change the geometry of the resulting surfaces. > > > > However, on my current dataset, 1.5T adolescent brains with pervasive motion > artifacts that do not meet the threshold for unusable data, absolutely no > intervention I have done on the wm.mgz volume has any impact at all on the > generation of the white matter surfaces. I am really very puzzled by this. > All of the files that result from wm.mgz reflect the edits, however the aseg > does not. > > > > The resulting white matter surfaces always follow the aseg white matter > definitions and never the wm.mgz edits. I feel as if there might be > something I am missing but this protocol has reliably been used to do white > matter edits in the past. I thought it may be an issue with fs 6 or the long > stream, but I have tried the same edits in 5.3, 6, long and cross streams > and nothing at all has worked. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions, or perhaps a hint that I am overlooking > something common? > > > > Thanks, > > > > David P. Semanek, HCISPP > > Research Technician, Posner Lab > > Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry > > Columbia University Medical Center > > New York State Psychiatric Institute > > 1051 Riverside Drive, Pardes Bldg. Rm. 2424 > > New York, NY 10032 > > PH: (646) 774-5885 > > > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail is meant only for the use of the intended > recipient. It may contain confidential information which is legally > privileged or otherwise protected by law. If you received this e-mail in > error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, you are > strictly prohibited from reviewing, using, disseminating, distributing or > copying the e-mail. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN > E-MAIL AND DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. Thank you for your > cooperation. > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer Freesurfer Info Page - Harvard Universityhttps://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu To see the collection of prior postings to the list, visit the Freesurfer Archives. A searchable archive which of messages PRIOR to March 2004 is at ...
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
-
Bruce Fischl -
David Semanek -
Hoopes, Andrew -
Martin Reuter