Gentlemen,
I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
I could think of the following:
1. Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
2. VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of individual anatomies
3. ????
4. ????
5. ????
Thanks a lot in advance.
Martin
Hi Martin,
1. FS uses geometry to do inter-subject registration, which in our experience results in a much better matching of homologous cortical regions than volumetric techniques.
2. FS allows you to look at the two components of volume separately (thickness and surface area). We have found that these two do not necessarily track one another, and in the worst case where one is increasing and the other decreasing the volume change can be 0.
3. The target we use for registration (the white matter surface geometry) is completely invariant to gm atrophy, so gm changes won't results in a different registration.
Steve Smith and Morgan Hough at Oxford just did a pretty comprehensive study of this, so maybe they will chime in.
cheers, Bruce
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Martin Kavec wrote:
Gentlemen,
I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
I could think of the following:
Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of individual
anatomies
????
????
????
Thanks a lot in advance.
Martin _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Martin,
I have an still unpublished work comparing VBM and FS in Alzheimer. I can say to you that FS provides result much more accurate in this area.
Best Regards,
Pedro Paulo Jr
2008/5/14, Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu:
Hi Martin,
- FS uses geometry to do inter-subject registration, which in our
experience results in a much better matching of homologous cortical regions than volumetric techniques.
- FS allows you to look at the two components of volume separately
(thickness and surface area). We have found that these two do not necessarily track one another, and in the worst case where one is increasing and the other decreasing the volume change can be 0.
- The target we use for registration (the white matter surface geometry)
is completely invariant to gm atrophy, so gm changes won't results in a different registration.
Steve Smith and Morgan Hough at Oxford just did a pretty comprehensive study of this, so maybe they will chime in.
cheers, Bruce
On Wed, 14 May 2008, Martin Kavec wrote:
Gentlemen,
I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
I could think of the following:
Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of
individual anatomies
????
????
????
Thanks a lot in advance.
Martin _______________________________________________ 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
.Bold { font-weight: bold; } .Title { font-weight: bold; font-size: 18px; color: #cc3300; } .Code { border: #8b4513 1px solid; padding-right: 5px; padding-left: 5px;color: #000066; font-family: 'Courier New' , Monospace;background-color: #ff9933; } In my case with the patients with chronic major depression, VBM (tissue concentration) and modulated VBM (volume change) showedmore sensitive findings. In addition, VBM provide the brain tissue change of subcortical areas.I think the controlling of TICV (total intracranial cavity volume) is important factor for FreeSurfer analysis, but I failed it with Qdec with unkwon error. Maybe this is a problem of my analysis. Best regards!Woo-Suk, Tae Ph.D.Chuncheon, Korea --- Original Message ---From : "Pedro Paulo de Magalh?es Oliveira Junior"To : "Bruce Fischl"Date : 2008/05/15 목요일 오후 10:09:53Subject : Resp.: [Freesurfer] Freesurfer vs. VBMMartin, I have an still unpublished work comparing VBM and FS in Alzheimer. I can say to you that FS provides result much more accurate in this area. Best Regards, Pedro Paulo Jr 2008/5/14, Bruce Fischl : Hi Martin, 1. FS uses geometry to do inter-subject registration, which in our experience results in a much better matching of homologous cortical regions than volumetric techniques. 2. FS allows you to look at the two components of volume separately (thickness and surface area). We have found that these two do not necessarily track one another, and in the worst case where one is increasing and the other decreasing the volume change can be 0. 3. The target we use for registration (the white matter surface geometry) is completely invariant to gm atrophy, so gm changes won't results in a different registration. Steve Smith and Morgan Hough at Oxford just did a pretty comprehensive study of this, so maybe they will chime in. cheers, Bruce On Wed, 14 May 2008, Martin Kavec wrote: Gentlemen, I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM. I could think of the following: 1. Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation 2. VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of individual anatomies 3. ???? 4. ???? 5. ???? Thanks a lot in advance. Martin _______________________________________________ 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 mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Hi Martin,
Not to belabor this topic but one of the major advantages in using Freesurfer is that for an individual subject, you can ascertain what the individual volume/thickness is of specific neuroanatomic areas. Clinically, this information is of significant importance as you can then detail whether atrophy in specific regions is predictive of a clinical endpoint (e.g diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease) or how atrophy in specific regions progresses over time (e.g. longitudinal anatomic change within a specific individual). To the best of my knowledge, SPM/VBM only allows for group comparisons, not indidividual subject morphometric information, and does not allow you to either predict or longitudinally track morphometric changes in a single individual.
Hope this helps,
Rahul -- Rahul S. Desikan rahul@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Gentlemen,
I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
I could think of the following:
Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of
individual anatomies
????
????
????
Thanks a lot in advance.
Martin _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Thanks to all of you for ideas. You may also find interesting to look at:
page on VBM, which has large section of Criticism. The most striking for me is the inaccuracy of the spatial normalization, which may account for as much as 10.8 mm.
On Thursday 15 May 2008 18:58:15 rahul@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Martin,
Not to belabor this topic but one of the major advantages in using Freesurfer is that for an individual subject, you can ascertain what the individual volume/thickness is of specific neuroanatomic areas. Clinically, this information is of significant importance as you can then detail whether atrophy in specific regions is predictive of a clinical endpoint (e.g diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease) or how atrophy in specific regions progresses over time (e.g. longitudinal anatomic change within a specific individual).
Indeed that is a strong argument! However, to be able to say that "this individual is likely to have Alz due to his parietal cortex atrophy" one either needs to know exactly what the thickness should be at the age of the individual, or have several age matched controls in hand.
To the best of my knowledge, SPM/VBM only allows for group comparisons, not indidividual subject morphometric information, and
I am not an expert in VBM, but I wonder, if I would have those several controls in hand, shouldn't I be able to compare the individual with this group?
Thanks,
Martin
p.s. Natalie Voets at Oxford also has a study on this and might have some comments...
On Thu, 15 May 2008 rahul@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Martin,
Not to belabor this topic but one of the major advantages in using Freesurfer is that for an individual subject, you can ascertain what the individual volume/thickness is of specific neuroanatomic areas. Clinically, this information is of significant importance as you can then detail whether atrophy in specific regions is predictive of a clinical endpoint (e.g diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease) or how atrophy in specific regions progresses over time (e.g. longitudinal anatomic change within a specific individual). To the best of my knowledge, SPM/VBM only allows for group comparisons, not indidividual subject morphometric information, and does not allow you to either predict or longitudinally track morphometric changes in a single individual.
Hope this helps,
Rahul
Rahul S. Desikan rahul@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Gentlemen,
I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
I could think of the following:
Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of
individual anatomies
????
????
????
Thanks a lot in advance.
Martin _______________________________________________ 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
Do you have pointers for this paper?
2008/5/15 Bruce Fischl fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu:
p.s. Natalie Voets at Oxford also has a study on this and might have some comments...
On Thu, 15 May 2008 rahul@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Hi Martin,
Not to belabor this topic but one of the major advantages in using Freesurfer is that for an individual subject, you can ascertain what the individual volume/thickness is of specific neuroanatomic areas. Clinically, this information is of significant importance as you can then detail whether atrophy in specific regions is predictive of a clinical endpoint (e.g diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease) or how atrophy in specific regions progresses over time (e.g. longitudinal anatomic change within a specific individual). To the best of my knowledge, SPM/VBM only allows for group comparisons, not indidividual subject morphometric information, and does not allow you to either predict or longitudinally track morphometric changes in a single individual.
Hope this helps,
Rahul
Rahul S. Desikan rahul@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Gentlemen,
I am giving a lecture about aging brain. I only discuss freesurfer, since that's the method we use for the brain volume and cortical thickness assessment. There are other methods, such as VBM and SIENA potentially providing similar information. I would appreciate if you could point me to a reference, which compares features of Freesurfer and VBM, or if you could provide me your insight on what are the advantages of FreeSurfer over VBM.
I could think of the following:
Freesurfer allowes for the subvoxel precision of the volume estimation
VBM involves strong filtering in order to suppress variations of
individual anatomies
????
????
????
Thanks a lot in advance.
Martin _______________________________________________ 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 mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Bruce Fischl -
Martin Kavec -
Pedro Paulo de Magalhães Oliveira Junior -
rahul＠nmr.mgh.harvard.edu -
Woo-Suk, Tae