Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks --------------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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.
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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.
So if I understand correctly, you would not recommend getting a jump start on cross-sectional processing and editing under 5.0, rerunning everything under 5.1 once it comes out, then run (for the first time) longitudinal under 5.1? Are there going to be some incompatibilities with 5.1, where it cannot be run on top of 5.0 data? Thanks.
-Derin
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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 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.
I'll leave that for Martin also On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Derin Cobia wrote:
So if I understand correctly, you would not recommend getting a jump start on cross-sectional processing and editing under 5.0, rerunning everything under 5.1 once it comes out, then run (for the first time) longitudinal under 5.1? Are there going to be some incompatibilities with 5.1, where it cannot be run on top of 5.0 data? Thanks.
-Derin
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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 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.
Hi everyone,
it is ok to run 5.0 cross sectionally and use that data for 5.1 base and long. We will try hard to make this work, even if new cross sectional files are needed (they will then be created in the base or long stream). However, these are reasons, why it might make sense to wait with the cross sectionals also: - there might be changes that result in slightly different cross sectional results when processing it with 5.1, and in more stable motion correction. Especially if you have cases where motion correction fails in 5.0 (and works with the fixed mri_robust_template), you should wait. - when reporting results in a paper, you will have to explain the more complicated setup - the whole concept of edits will be looked at and changed, so it is unclear at the moment, how/if cross sectional edits will be propagated into the base and long stream.
Release date target is end of November. (This is concerning the parts that I am involved with, not sure if there are significant other improvements that cannot wait for a later release, eg. in the cross sectional stream and that take more time to include). But we really want to get 5.1 out soon, so I guess in the case of doubt, other stuff would have to wait for 5.2.
We have a meeting Wednesday. If the release target changes based on the discussion, we'll let you know Wed. afternoon, but that is unlikely.
Best, Martin
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:20 -0500, Derin Cobia wrote:
So if I understand correctly, you would not recommend getting a jump start on cross-sectional processing and editing under 5.0, rerunning everything under 5.1 once it comes out, then run (for the first time) longitudinal under 5.1? Are there going to be some incompatibilities with 5.1, where it cannot be run on top of 5.0 data? Thanks.
-Derin
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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 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 mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Great, thank you for your rapid response,
Marie
On 18 oct. 10, at 17:19, Martin Reuter wrote:
Hi everyone,
it is ok to run 5.0 cross sectionally and use that data for 5.1 base and long. We will try hard to make this work, even if new cross sectional files are needed (they will then be created in the base or long stream). However, these are reasons, why it might make sense to wait with the cross sectionals also:
- there might be changes that result in slightly different cross
sectional results when processing it with 5.1, and in more stable motion correction. Especially if you have cases where motion correction fails in 5.0 (and works with the fixed mri_robust_template), you should wait.
- when reporting results in a paper, you will have to explain the more
complicated setup
- the whole concept of edits will be looked at and changed, so it is
unclear at the moment, how/if cross sectional edits will be propagated into the base and long stream.
Release date target is end of November. (This is concerning the parts that I am involved with, not sure if there are significant other improvements that cannot wait for a later release, eg. in the cross sectional stream and that take more time to include). But we really want to get 5.1 out soon, so I guess in the case of doubt, other stuff would have to wait for 5.2.
We have a meeting Wednesday. If the release target changes based on the discussion, we'll let you know Wed. afternoon, but that is unlikely.
Best, Martin
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:20 -0500, Derin Cobia wrote:
So if I understand correctly, you would not recommend getting a jump start on cross-sectional processing and editing under 5.0, rerunning everything under 5.1 once it comes out, then run (for the first time) longitudinal under 5.1? Are there going to be some incompatibilities with 5.1, where it cannot be run on top of 5.0 data? Thanks.
-Derin
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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 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 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
Hi Martin,
We have processed groups of controls(40) and patients(15)for two time points using longitudinal processing. In few controls and even patients we saw increase in cortical volume. Ideally there should be no change in cortical volume or we might expect cortical loss specially in the patients, when compare two time points. Has any body else seen this effect in their cohort? Would this be solved in the newer version.
Does this problem arise from the initial starting point failure when 2nd step of longitudinal processing is run where each time point is processed using the template.
Thanks Ayaz
On Mon, October 18, 2010 11:19 am, Martin Reuter wrote:
Hi everyone,
it is ok to run 5.0 cross sectionally and use that data for 5.1 base and long. We will try hard to make this work, even if new cross sectional files are needed (they will then be created in the base or long stream). However, these are reasons, why it might make sense to wait with the cross sectionals also:
- there might be changes that result in slightly different cross
sectional results when processing it with 5.1, and in more stable motion correction. Especially if you have cases where motion correction fails in 5.0 (and works with the fixed mri_robust_template), you should wait.
- when reporting results in a paper, you will have to explain the more
complicated setup
- the whole concept of edits will be looked at and changed, so it is
unclear at the moment, how/if cross sectional edits will be propagated into the base and long stream.
Release date target is end of November. (This is concerning the parts that I am involved with, not sure if there are significant other improvements that cannot wait for a later release, eg. in the cross sectional stream and that take more time to include). But we really want to get 5.1 out soon, so I guess in the case of doubt, other stuff would have to wait for 5.2.
We have a meeting Wednesday. If the release target changes based on the discussion, we'll let you know Wed. afternoon, but that is unlikely.
Best, Martin
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:20 -0500, Derin Cobia wrote:
So if I understand correctly, you would not recommend getting a jump start on cross-sectional processing and editing under 5.0, rerunning everything under 5.1 once it comes out, then run (for the first time) longitudinal under 5.1? Are there going to be some incompatibilities with 5.1, where it cannot be run on top of 5.0 data? Thanks.
-Derin
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
Hi,
I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 timepoints. Is it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with version 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template part. Or would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the entire processing?
Thank you for your help,
Marie _______________________________________________ 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
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 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 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
Hi Ayaz,
A few questions first: what FS version? How far are the TP apart? Same Scanner and same software version on the scanner? Is the volume increase significant? How much percent increase?
Generally: there can always be individual cases with volume increase, e.g. due to motion in the scanner and blurry images, due to noise, gradient non-linearities etc. We have seen cases where it looks to an expert like there really is thickening. Have you checked the surfaces, do they look alright?
Another thing you can do is: look at the cross sectional results. Do they show the same behavior (usually they do, but with larger variability). And again, you should always look at the whole group. Individual images can show strange behavior. If individual subjects show outlier results, check everything and if there is strong motion artifacts etc. you might want to remove that subject.
Best, Martin
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 12:06 -0400, Muhammad Ayaz wrote:
Hi Martin,
We have processed groups of controls(40) and patients(15)for two time points using longitudinal processing. In few controls and even patients we saw increase in cortical volume. Ideally there should be no change in cortical volume or we might expect cortical loss specially in the patients, when compare two time points. Has any body else seen this effect in their cohort? Would this be solved in the newer version.
Does this problem arise from the initial starting point failure when 2nd step of longitudinal processing is run where each time point is processed using the template.
Thanks Ayaz
On Mon, October 18, 2010 11:19 am, Martin Reuter wrote:
Hi everyone,
it is ok to run 5.0 cross sectionally and use that data for 5.1 base and long. We will try hard to make this work, even if new cross sectional files are needed (they will then be created in the base or long stream). However, these are reasons, why it might make sense to wait with the cross sectionals also:
- there might be changes that result in slightly different cross
sectional results when processing it with 5.1, and in more stable motion correction. Especially if you have cases where motion correction fails in 5.0 (and works with the fixed mri_robust_template), you should wait.
- when reporting results in a paper, you will have to explain the more
complicated setup
- the whole concept of edits will be looked at and changed, so it is
unclear at the moment, how/if cross sectional edits will be propagated into the base and long stream.
Release date target is end of November. (This is concerning the parts that I am involved with, not sure if there are significant other improvements that cannot wait for a later release, eg. in the cross sectional stream and that take more time to include). But we really want to get 5.1 out soon, so I guess in the case of doubt, other stuff would have to wait for 5.2.
We have a meeting Wednesday. If the release target changes based on the discussion, we'll let you know Wed. afternoon, but that is unlikely.
Best, Martin
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 09:20 -0500, Derin Cobia wrote:
So if I understand correctly, you would not recommend getting a jump start on cross-sectional processing and editing under 5.0, rerunning everything under 5.1 once it comes out, then run (for the first time) longitudinal under 5.1? Are there going to be some incompatibilities with 5.1, where it cannot be run on top of 5.0 data? Thanks.
-Derin
On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:54 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
I'll leave that for Martin....
Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior wrote:
Hi Bruce,
What's the ETA for 5.1?
thanks
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior Diretor de Operações Netfilter & SpeedComm Telecom -- www.netfilter.com.br -- For mobile: http://www.netfilter.com.br/mobile
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:39, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.eduwrote:
Hi Marie,
wait for 5.1. Martin has made some significant improvements.
cheers Bruce On Mon, 18 Oct 2010, Marie Schaer wrote:
> Hi, > > I am planing to process a longitudinal dataset with 3 > timepoints. Is > it worthy to begin already the cross-sectional processing with > version > 5.0 and then wait version 5.1 to continue from the template > part. Or > would you advice me to wait the release of version 5.1 for the > entire > processing? > > Thank you for your help, > > Marie > _______________________________________________ > 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
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 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 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
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Bruce Fischl -
Derin Cobia -
Marie Schaer -
Martin Reuter -
Muhammad Ayaz -
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior