Hi Tim
can you elaborate what the issue is? If you have binary lesion maps inthe
volume, can't you just sample those onto the surface and measure surface
area directly? I think I am missing something
Bruce
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Timothy
Meier wrote:
Hello,
I just wanted to repost this to see if anyone had any thoughts on an
appropriate 'lesion' size for a pothole analysis performed on the surface.
We want to compare the average number of small surface lesions (estimated
from cortical thickness) across single subjects for a control group relative
to our patient group.
We have done similar analyses in the volume for white matter, so one thought
was to use that same lesion size. However, that requires estimating a
surface area from our previously used volume.
Any thoughts on how to approach this, or thoughts on an appropriate lesion
size to use would be appreciated.
Thanks,
-Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:03:53 -0500
From: Timothy Meier <tme...@mrn.org>
Subject: [Freesurfer] Converting lesion volume to surface area
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Message-ID:
<CAGXOw+14YO4VBWUAA4YfzE7Gerxo-PG33FPCEmpm8PxpTpW=c...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello,
Previously we have used a lesion of 128 microliters and have
filtered out
anything smaller in volume than that for analyses (single
subject "pothole"
analysis). Now we want to do something similar on the surface.
So we need
to approximate the surface area of that 128 microliters when
translated to
group analysis surface (fsaverage).
128 microliters is 128 data points in 1x1x1 resolution. Let's
say those
data points only exist in the cortical ribbon volume.
Question 1: How many of the 128 data points from cortical ribbon
volume get
translated into surface space? What is the volume to surface
translation
ratio?
Question 2: Because we want to filter clusters with
mri_surfcluster, we are
interested in the resulting area of our original 128 lesion.
Therefore, how
much area is represented by each data point when translated onto
the
surface?
Is this simply "AvgVtxArea" of the inflated surface multiplied
by the
number of data points that get translated from volume to
surface?
And what is the best way to answer these two questions from
standard
Freesurfer output:
e.g. Should we calculate from the ("NumVert" "SurfArea"
"GrayVol") columns
of the lh.aparc.stats file, get the mean of all SurfArea/GrayVol
from
aparc.stats, and then multiple by our 128?
Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:http://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/pipermail/freesurfer/attachments/20141030/f
e25ad38/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.
