Yes, although I think it's actually the log posterior
On Jun 25, 2013, at 4:01 PM, Dov Sadan <dov.sadan...@gmail.com> wrote: > "LL" stand for LogLikelihood ? ;-) > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Bruce Fischl <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > wrote: > for the aseg it's these lines: > . > . > . > pass 1: 89966 changed. image ll: -2.224, PF=1.000 > pass 2: 15019 changed. image ll: -2.221, PF=1.000 > pass 3: 5116 changed. > pass 4: 2124 changed. > writing labeled volume to aseg.auto_noCCseg.mgz... > > although I guess I only compute it for the first couple of iterations of ICM > > > cheers > Bruce > > > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Dov Sadan wrote: > > This ?Computing Initial Surface Statistics > > -face loglikelihood: -8.0702 (-4.0351) > -vertex loglikelihood: -6.6450 (-3.3225) > -normal dot loglikelihood: -3.4961 (-3.4961) > -quad curv loglikelihood: -6.1619 (-3.0810) > Total Loglikelihood : -24.3732 > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Bruce Fischl <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> > wrote: > No, not that. That is the density reestimation. Later on it > should write out the log posterior > > > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 3:32 PM, Dov Sadan <dov.sadan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Buche, > Thank you very much for your quick reply. > > Do you mean those lines: (from recon-all. log) > ================== > . > . > . > gca peak = 0.27536 (62) > mri peak = 0.11940 (97) > Right_Hippocampus (53): linear fit = 1.55 x + 0.0 (325 voxels, > overlap=0.000) > Right_Hippocampus (53): linear fit = 1.55 x + 0.0 (325 voxels, > peak = 96), gca=96.1 > . > . > > =================== > > If this is what you meant, can you shed some light on this log. > What "gca peak" / "mri peak" means? And what the number > insight the parentheses represent ? > > Thanks in advance, > Assaf > > > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Fischl > <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: > Hi Dov > > I think it writes out the log posterior at each > iteration of the aseg (mri_ca_label) > > cheers > Bruce > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Dov Sadan wrote: > > Hi there, > > I'm wondering if there's any parameter > which can assess the correctness of > the freesurfer's segmentation ( > the aparc.a2009s+aseg.mgz file). > > --> Assuming the freesurfer's algorithm > fitting/minimizing an objective > function, right ? If so, where I can > find the value of this > fitted function ? (or RMS value ?) > > Thanks in advance, > Dov > > > > > 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 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.
