In writing a paper of longitudinal changes in a large heterogeneous population with no group comparisons, what would be considered "more important" to include: absolute ROI volumes, or volumes corrected for ICV?
Using ICV corrected volumes makes sense when comparing groups, but when just describing population changes over time, for example a cross section of a population over a lifespan, is it better to use absolute volumes, corrected volumes, or both?
Hi Gregory,
If looking at longitudinal changes, I would use uncorrected ROI volumes. You could consider including ICV as a covariate (for offset and slope interaction, to test if ICV has an effect on your slopes).
Best, Martin
On 05/19/2017 04:44 PM, Gregory Book wrote:
In writing a paper of longitudinal changes in a large heterogeneous population with no group comparisons, what would be considered "more important" to include: absolute ROI volumes, or volumes corrected for ICV?
Using ICV corrected volumes makes sense when comparing groups, but when just describing population changes over time, for example a cross section of a population over a lifespan, is it better to use absolute volumes, corrected volumes, or both?
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
-
Gregory Book -
Martin Reuter