Hi again,
Two questions:
1). You said earlier that GM volumes from mris_anatomical_stats are more accurate than from the aseg files. Would you recommend using the surface-based GM volumes instead of the ones from the aseg.stats files? I ask because we have ~200 subjects processed for volume, but not surface, meaning no mris_anatomical_stats. If we could avoid the added processing time on these it would be helpful, but don't want to do it at the expense of accuracy.
2). What structures are calculated into "total white matter volume" under mris_anatomical_stats? Does it include corpus callosum and others? Thanks.
-Derin
1) yes, I would do the surfaces. 2) ignore the WM volume in mris_anatomical_stats. It's old and no longer accurate. It's going to disappear I think in the next release. Use the aseg instead.
cheers, Bruce On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Derin Cobia wrote:
Hi again,
Two questions:
1). You said earlier that GM volumes from mris_anatomical_stats are more accurate than from the aseg files. Would you recommend using the surface-based GM volumes instead of the ones from the aseg.stats files? I ask because we have ~200 subjects processed for volume, but not surface, meaning no mris_anatomical_stats. If we could avoid the added processing time on these it would be helpful, but don't want to do it at the expense of accuracy.
2). What structures are calculated into "total white matter volume" under mris_anatomical_stats? Does it include corpus callosum and others? Thanks.
-Derin
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Hi Derin,
In addition to what Bruce mentioned, I would like to add that though corpus callosum is included as one of the anatomical structures in the cortical parcellation atlas (Desikan-Killiany), I actually would not use the values from it. We really intended for this structure to be used more as an anatomic 'placeholder' for the cingulate regions than anything; anatomically, in the parc. atlas this region is meaningless.
Hope that helps,
rahul
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Bruce Fischl wrote:
- yes, I would do the surfaces.
- ignore the WM volume in mris_anatomical_stats. It's old and no longer
accurate. It's going to disappear I think in the next release. Use the aseg instead.
cheers, Bruce On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Derin Cobia wrote:
Hi again,
Two questions:
1). You said earlier that GM volumes from mris_anatomical_stats are more accurate than from the aseg files. Would you recommend using the surface-based GM volumes instead of the ones from the aseg.stats files? I ask because we have ~200 subjects processed for volume, but not surface, meaning no mris_anatomical_stats. If we could avoid the added processing time on these it would be helpful, but don't want to do it at the expense of accuracy.
2). What structures are calculated into "total white matter volume" under mris_anatomical_stats? Does it include corpus callosum and others? Thanks.
-Derin
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 -
Rahul Desikan