External Email - Use Caution
Hey Freesurfer Experts,
I would like to use the Euler number as a quantitative quality measure of my reconstructed data as Rosen et al. (2017) recommend in their recently published paper. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917310832
I figured I can use:
mris_euler_number [<options>] insurf to get the euler number for each data set.
Which surface should I use though? The white or pial surface area or is there no preference?
Does anybody have experience with what range of Euler number would be acceptable? I read that 2 would be perfect but is 2.5 still ok? Or 1? Somehow I could not find any recommendation in the Rosen paper about thresholds or something similar. Did I miss something?
Any advice would be highly appreciated! Thanks!
Best, Lea
_______________________________________
Lea Backhausen, B.Sc.
Student Research Assistant
Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und –psychotherapie Tel. +49 (0)351 458-7166 Fax +49 (0)351 458-5754
Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts des Freistaates Sachsen Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.dehttps://deref-web-02.de/mail/client/kXc4jbFBtdU/dereferrer/?redirectUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uniklinikum-dresden.de%2F Vorstand: Prof. Dr. med. D. M. Albrecht (Sprecher), Wilfried E. B. Winzer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Prof. Dr. med. Peter C. Scriba USt.-IDNr.: DE 140 135 217, St.-Nr.: 203 145 03113
Hi Lea
the Euler number is an integer, so it will never be 2.5. In fact, in our reconstructed surfaces it will always be exactly 2, except for the *nofix* surfaces, as we explicitly correct the topology of the surfaces (see the Automated Manifold Surgery paper if you are interested in the details)
cheers Bruce
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Backhausen, Lea wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Hey Freesurfer Experts,
I would like to use the Euler number as a quantitative quality measure of my reconstructed data as Rosen et al. (2017) recommend in their recently published paper. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917310832
I figured I can use:
mris_euler_number [<options>] insurf to get the euler number for each data set.
Which surface should I use though? The white or pial surface area or is there no preference?
Does anybody have experience with what range of Euler number would be acceptable? I read that 2 would be perfect but is 2.5 still ok? Or 1? Somehow I could not find any recommendation in the Rosen paper about thresholds or something similar. Did I miss something?
Any advice would be highly appreciated! Thanks!
Best, Lea
Lea Backhausen, B.Sc.
Student Research Assistant
Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und –psychotherapie Tel. +49 (0)351 458-7166 Fax +49 (0)351 458-5754
Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts des Freistaates Sachsen Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.de Vorstand: Prof. Dr. med. D. M. Albrecht (Sprecher), Wilfried E. B. Winzer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Prof. Dr. med. Peter C. Scriba USt.-IDNr.: DE 140 135 217, St.-Nr.: 203 145 03113
These numbers are output automatically in the aseg.stats file in v6, eg,
# Measure lhSurfaceHoles, lhSurfaceHoles, Number of defect holes in lh surfaces prior to fixing, 17, unitless # Measure rhSurfaceHoles, rhSurfaceHoles, Number of defect holes in rh surfaces prior to fixing, 12, unitless # Measure SurfaceHoles, SurfaceHoles, Total number of defect holes in surfaces prior to fixing, 29, unitless
They will be included as global measures when you run asegstats2table
On 07/12/2018 11:01 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
Hi Lea
the Euler number is an integer, so it will never be 2.5. In fact, in our reconstructed surfaces it will always be exactly 2, except for the *nofix* surfaces, as we explicitly correct the topology of the surfaces (see the Automated Manifold Surgery paper if you are interested in the details)
cheers Bruce
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, Backhausen, Lea wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Hey Freesurfer Experts,
I would like to use the Euler number as a quantitative quality measure of my reconstructed data as Rosen et al. (2017) recommend in their recently published paper. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917310832
I figured I can use:
mris_euler_number [<options>] insurf to get the euler number for each data set.
Which surface should I use though? The white or pial surface area or is there no preference?
Does anybody have experience with what range of Euler number would be acceptable? I read that 2 would be perfect but is 2.5 still ok? Or 1? Somehow I could not find any recommendation in the Rosen paper about thresholds or something similar. Did I miss something?
Any advice would be highly appreciated! Thanks!
Best, Lea
Lea Backhausen, B.Sc.
Student Research Assistant
Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie und –psychotherapie Tel. +49 (0)351 458-7166 Fax +49 (0)351 458-5754
Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts des Freistaates Sachsen Fetscherstraße 74, 01307 Dresden http://www.uniklinikum-dresden.de Vorstand: Prof. Dr. med. D. M. Albrecht (Sprecher), Wilfried E. B. Winzer Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Prof. Dr. med. Peter C. Scriba USt.-IDNr.: DE 140 135 217, St.-Nr.: 203 145 03113
Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer Developers,
My goal is to build a study-specific pediatric template brain to rerun the recon-all-all. I am encountering the same error while running make_average_subject Freesurfer version 6.0.0 on MacOS High Sierra 10.13.6 as described here and implemented the suggested changes replacing mri_glmfit-sim, make_average_subject, make_average_surface, and mri_aparc2aseg: https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail//freesurfer/2017-November/054933....
Yet, the the mri/norm.mgz file is still missing (see attached logs).
Exits on:
#@# AParc-to-ASeg aparc Mon Jul 16 17:45:19 CEST 2018 /Volumes/FB-LIP/MRI/Jacobs/Freesurfer2/Jacobs/avgsubjectT1 \n mri_aparc2aseg --s avgsubjectT1 --volmask --aseg aseg.presurf.hypos --relabel mri/norm.mgz mri/transforms/talairach.m3z /Volumes/Mac/Applications/freesurfer/average/RB_all_2016-05-10.vc700.gca mri/aseg.auto_noCCseg.label_intensities.txt --no-relabel \n /Volumes/Mac/Applications/freesurfer/bin/mri_aparc2aseg: Exec format error. Binary file not executable. Darwin lip-osx-004040 17.7.0 Darwin Kernel Version 17.7.0: Thu Jun 21 22:53:14 PDT 2018; root:xnu-4570.71.2~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
recon-all -s avgsubjectT1 exited with ERRORS at Mon Jul 16 17:45:19 CEST 2018
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Laurel
Laurel Raffington
Postdoctoral Researcher
Center for Lifespan Psychology
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer Developers,
My goal is to build a study-specific pediatric template brain to rerun the recon-all-all. I am encountering the same error while running make_average_subject Freesurfer version 6.0.0 on MacOS High Sierra 10.13.6 as described here and implemented the suggested changes replacing mri_glmfit-sim, make_average_subject, make_average_surface, and mri_aparc2aseg: https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail//freesurfer/2017-November/054933....
Yet, another error persists.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Laurel
Laurel Raffington
Postdoctoral Researcher
Center for Lifespan Psychology
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
where did you get the make_average_subject script? It is not the one that is released with version 6.
On 7/20/18 3:46 AM, Raffington, Laurel wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer Developers,
My goal is to build a study-specific pediatric template brain to rerun the recon-all-all. I am encountering the same error while running make_average_subject Freesurfer version 6.0.0 on MacOS High Sierra 10.13.6 as described here and implemented the suggested changes replacing mri_glmfit-sim, make_average_subject, make_average_surface, and mri_aparc2aseg: https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail//freesurfer/2017-November/054933....
Yet, another error persists.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Laurel
Laurel Raffington
Postdoctoral Researcher
Center for Lifespan Psychology
Max Planck Institute for Human Development
Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu