Hi Kelly, See also these threads where I advocate using mean cortical thickness as an appropriate covariate for a thickness analysis:
http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg11987.html http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg13459.html Mean cortical thickness is easily obtained using the cortex.label files in conjunction with mris_anatomical_stats cheers, -MH On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 08:32 -0400, Bruce Fischl wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > it's a bit of an open question what the relationshop between thickness > and icv is. It's probably not linear, maybe icv^(1/3)? > > cheers > Bruce > > > > On Fri, 28 May 2010, Kelly Silva wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I'm doing regression analyses with cortical thickness at > > the level of voxel. Should I correct the total GM volume by introducing > > this parameter as a confounding variable? Shoud I include the > > intracranial volume as an additional nuisance variable? If positive, I > > assume that these variables can only be introduced as covariates if > > they differ between groups. Am I correct? > > > > I saw in one message that we should not corret for thickness. Why not? > > > > Thanks in advance and best > > regards, > > Kelly > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freesurfer mailing list > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer > > > The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is > addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail > contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine > at > http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in > error > but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and > properly > dispose of the e-mail. _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
