Hi Bruce, Well for one of the subjects, the total temporal lobe volume from the first scan was 149937 mm3, and the second scan's total temporal lobe volume was 183121 mm3. These numbers were found by summing the volumes from the entorhinal, fusiform, parahippocampal, temporal pole, transverse temporal, and the inferior, middle, and superior temporal sections found in the lh.aparc.stats, rh.aparc.stats, and wmparc.stats for the respective scans. Hippocampus volumes were found by summing the right and left parts found in aseg.stats.
Jessica On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Fischl <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote: > how are you computing the 20% difference? We definitely don't see this, and > Martin has done extensive testing of repeatability. > Bruce > > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Jessica Liu wrote: > > Hi Martin, >> >> Thanks for getting back to me. Actually I have two young controls who >> have 20% differences between two scans a day apart. Visually, there >> are not abnormalities for the surfaces and hippocampus in both subjects >> i.e. on tkmedit, the color of the hippocampus area (yellow) looks >> alright to me. I don't see any motion artifacts either. >> >> Jessica >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Martin Reuter < >> mreu...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: >> Hi Jessica, >> >> I don't think this is normal. Is this a single subject? Of course in >> a >> single subject lots of stuff can go wrong. Are the surfaces correct? >> And >> the hippo label? Are there motion artifacts in the image etc. >> >> Anyway, you should process this with the longitudinal stream: >> >> http://freesurfer.net/fswiki/**LongitudinalProcessing<http://freesurfer.net/fswiki/LongitudinalProcessing> >> which should increase repeatability. >> >> Best, Martin >> >> >> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 09:01 -0700, Jessica Liu wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > We found 20% differences in temporal lobe brain volume and ca. 5% >> > difference in the hippocampus volume between two data sets of a young >> > normal volunteer scanned 2 days apart. >> > >> > We use the one-step 19 hours recon-all -all procedure and directly sum >> > select values taken from the lh.aparc.stats, rh.aparc.stats, and >> > wmparc.stats. The values summed were based on information given from >> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.**edu/pipermail/freesurfer/2007-** >> April/005000.html<https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail/freesurfer/2007-April/005000.html> >> > >> > My question is, are these observations normal for Freesurfer? Any >> > comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks! >> > -- >> > Pom & Jessica >> > >> > >> > >> > ______________________________**_________________ >> > Freesurfer mailing list >> > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu >> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.**edu/mailman/listinfo/**freesurfer<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<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 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.
