External Email - Use Caution
Hello,
I hope you are doing well. Yesterday, I had some questions regarding normalization in Freesurfer. Thanks to Dr. Douglas N. Greve, I received answers for all of them. However, I still have one more question.
When I normalize brain surfaces to eTIV, they appear to be in two different units (mm2 and mm3). Will this be a problem? Additionally, I would like to know your thoughts on normalizing cortical thicknesses. Do you think they should be normalized to eTIV, or would it be better to normalize them to the mean cortical thickness of each subject?
I would greatly appreciate your response.
Thank you, Yunus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yunus Soleymani Ph.D. Candidate of Neuroimaging Tehran University of Medical Sciences soleymani.yunus@yahoo.com+98 914 526 9298--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Yunus
I think typically you would normalize by eTIV^(2/3), which would result in a dimensionless scaling
Cheers Bruce
From: freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu On Behalf Of yunus soleymani Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 3:31 AM To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Subject: [Freesurfer] surface and cortical thickness normalization
External Email - Use Caution Hello,
I hope you are doing well. Yesterday, I had some questions regarding normalization in Freesurfer. Thanks to Dr. Douglas N. Greve, I received answers for all of them. However, I still have one more question.
When I normalize brain surfaces to eTIV, they appear to be in two different units (mm2 and mm3). Will this be a problem? Additionally, I would like to know your thoughts on normalizing cortical thicknesses. Do you think they should be normalized to eTIV, or would it be better to normalize them to the mean cortical thickness of each subject?
I would greatly appreciate your response.
Thank you, Yunus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yunus Soleymani
Ph.D. Candidate of Neuroimaging
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be soleymani.yunus@yahoo.comhttp://secure-web.cisco.com/1fqfJboAuXsM6aDUtwuWBKMQ1pm_ofDLPXTVSlpx_i2xHDlX3fQVqeQ131VC_qUAWmg3FS7Q-1T_Txv5ImR2-TOMS-Y9LbQ7O_BJvX2je0yEAzu21lteuOsVhBlYr15c2TAoWZOQmHu3RFmcNhIayAEID3WZZenJY-yCm4-pphDO6c-dKko5JatAAvQEIH8OoK8QRJtlCI1Iiwn1ct-5I8KY1TQSspAy5f3TfogUV9UWqAsKUCOZJY6A-bIm-63dFkxk36yKhOJHT5xibQJe1D1OWFwlkezlgkx37Q_WT3jr9I_teuBBhd4j2e_WQ6WXCO1mUYBbm17-BxTKiQZhVOw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com
+98 914 526 9298
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I suggested scaling by eTIV is an analogy with a box of paper. The surface area of the paper in the box scales linearly with the volume in the box (twice the volume, twice the paper, twice the area). I vaguely remember doing a test of this, but, if I did, it has been a while. probably using eTIV^(2/3) works well too. I don't think it is so important that it be unitless (though maybe it is easier at review time).
On 5/3/2024 10:56 AM, Fischl, Bruce R.,PHD wrote:
Hi Yunus
I think typically you would normalize by eTIV^(2/3), which would result in a dimensionless scaling
Cheers
Bruce
*From:*freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu freesurfer-bounces@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu *On Behalf Of *yunus soleymani *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2024 3:31 AM *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu *Subject:* [Freesurfer] surface and cortical thickness normalization
* External Email - Use Caution *
Hello,
I hope you are doing well. Yesterday, I had some questions regarding normalization in Freesurfer. Thanks to Dr. Douglas N. Greve, I received answers for all of them. However, I still have one more question.
When I normalize brain surfaces to eTIV, they appear to be in two different units (mm2 and mm3). Will this be a problem? Additionally, I would like to know your thoughts on normalizing cortical thicknesses. Do you think they should be normalized to eTIV, or would it be better to normalize them to the mean cortical thickness of each subject?
I would greatly appreciate your response.
Thank you, Yunus
*Yunus Soleymani* ** *Ph.D. Candidate of Neuroimaging * */Tehran University of Medical Sciences/* /*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be* *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be* *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be* *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be* soleymani.yunus@yahoo.com http://secure-web.cisco.com/1fqfJboAuXsM6aDUtwuWBKMQ1pm_ofDLPXTVSlpx_i2xHDlX3fQVqeQ131VC_qUAWmg3FS7Q-1T_Txv5ImR2-TOMS-Y9LbQ7O_BJvX2je0yEAzu21lteuOsVhBlYr15c2TAoWZOQmHu3RFmcNhIayAEID3WZZenJY-yCm4-pphDO6c-dKko5JatAAvQEIH8OoK8QRJtlCI1Iiwn1ct-5I8KY1TQSspAy5f3TfogUV9UWqAsKUCOZJY6A-bIm-63dFkxk36yKhOJHT5xibQJe1D1OWFwlkezlgkx37Q_WT3jr9I_teuBBhd4j2e_WQ6WXCO1mUYBbm17-BxTKiQZhVOw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com/
+98 914 526 9298
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu