that does look pretty good. My guess iss that the eTIV is also fine for this volume as it's only a 12 parameter transform, but I could be wrong (since I already was about our ability to accurately label this type of acquisition!)
Bruce On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Juranek, Jenifer wrote: > Hi Bruce, > I think you might underestimate the robustness of Freesurfer :) > In case I'm being too picky, I've attached a couple of example screenshots. > > I appreciate that anyone rarely bothers with processing MRIs without whole > brain coverage, but I'm wondering if *anything* can be salvaged from this > dataset with many instances of incomplete brain coverage. I have 2 > screenshots from the same subject (axial & sagittal planes) containing the > norm.mgz (**orig.mgz**) with the aseg.mgz overlay. This subject was processed > in FSv405. This example is not the worst (nor the best) example of incomplete > coverage....varies quite a bit across subjects. The aseg.mgz looks pretty > good. Will the ICV value generated by Freesurfer be accurate for correcting > subcortical aseg volumes by ICV? Are there any "rules of thumb" as to what is > necessary (in terms of brain/skull elements) for proper ICV values? > > Many Thanks for any comments, > Jenifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Fischl [mailto:fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 12:05 PM > To: Juranek, Jenifer > Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] ICV for incomplete whole brain coverage > > Hi Jenifer, > > how much is missing? If a substantial amount I would think things would > fail, including the segmentation itself, but we very rarely do this. > > Bruce > > _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
