This is not something you would run the MC sim on because there is no
clustering, it is just a list of ROIs with their p-values. The p-values
are uncorrected. You can do bonferoni correction across all the ROIs (or
just the ones you are interested in). You could do FDR too.
doug
On 2/2/15 9:39 PM, Bronwyn Overs wrote:
Thanks Doug, that worked well.
However, is it possible to run a monte-carlo simulation with this GLM
ROI analysis? I attempted to run it using the following command...
mri_glmfit-sim --glmdir DesikanROIAnal_case-control.thick.lh.glmdir
--cache 1.3 abs --cwpvalthresh 0.05 --2spaces
and received the following error:
ERROR: could not determine file for
DesikanROIAnal_case-control.thick.lh.glmdir/mask
Kind regards,
Bronwyn Overs
Research Assistant
Neuroscience Research Australia
Neuroscience Research Australia
Margarete Ainsworth Building
Barker Street Randwick Sydney NSW 2031 Australia
*M* 0411 308 769 *T* +61 2 9399 1883 *F* +61 2 9399 1265
neura.edu.au <http://neura.edu.au>
Follow @neuraustralia on twitter
<https://twitter.com/neuraustralia>Follow NeuRA on facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/NeuroscienceResearchAustralia>Subscribe to
the NeuRA Magazine <http://www.neura.edu.au/help-research/subscribe>
On 3/02/2015 11:03 am, Douglas Greve wrote:
Even easier. Run aparcstats2table, then run mri_glmfit passing the
output of aparcstats2table with --table (instead of --y). There's
something on the wiki about it, also look for the ROI tutorial.
doug
On 2/2/15 6:20 PM, Bronwyn Overs wrote:
Hi Doug,
I am not sure how to run an ROI analysis using mri_glmfit. Is there
a wiki page detailing this method (I was unable to find one)? Is the
first step to map lh.aparc.label and rh.aparc.label from fsaverage
to each of my individual subjects using mri_label2label? When I do
so and then view the mapped label for an individual subject in
freeview, it appears to be a continuous label for all of the
parcellated regions combined. Is this correct?
Kind regards,
Bronwyn Overs
Research Assistant
Neuroscience Research Australia
Neuroscience Research Australia
Margarete Ainsworth Building
Barker Street Randwick Sydney NSW 2031 Australia
*M* 0411 308 769 *T* +61 2 9399 1883 *F* +61 2 9399 1265
neura.edu.au <http://neura.edu.au>
Follow @neuraustralia on twitter
<https://twitter.com/neuraustralia>Follow NeuRA on facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/NeuroscienceResearchAustralia>Subscribe to
the NeuRA Magazine <http://www.neura.edu.au/help-research/subscribe>
On 3/02/2015 3:31 am, Douglas Greve wrote:
First, I would run the ROI analysis in mri_glmfit to see if you get
the same results as in SPSS. In the handfull of these cases, no one
has been able to correctly replicate the FS design matrix in SPSS,
so I suspect that is part of the discrepancy. The other thing is
that ROI and vertex-wise analyses are simply different. As an
extreme example, if some of the vertices are pos and some are neg
then they would cancel out when you average them in an ROI but
individually could be significant at the vertex level. If you
analyze the average over the cluster then that should come out as
significant.
doug
On 2/1/15 11:36 PM, Bronwyn Overs wrote:
Dear FreeSurfer Mailing List,
I have a sample of schizophrenia and control subjects for whom I
have run a case-control analysis of cortical thickness using two
separate methods (GLM vertex-wise analysis in freesurfer, repeated
measures ANCOVA analysis of parcellated data in SPSS). However,
for each methods of analysis I am getting extremely different
results. For the GLM in Freesurfer I have only 1 small cluster in
the frontal lobe that differs between cases and controls
(controlling for all other IVs, FWMH = 10mm, cluster-forming
threshold= .05, cluster-wise pval=.05), while for the ANCOVA
method all but 8 of the parcellated regions differ significantly
between groups (p<.05). For both methods I have used the same
model of predictors (independent variables = gender, group,
scanning site; covariate = age) and exactly the same sample of
participants. I have also replicated the GLM analysis using the
QDEC GUI to ensure that I had no made any mistakes.
Can you provide any insight into why I would be seeing such
different results for each method using the same data set? My
findings using the ANCOVA analysis make much more sense to me,
given previous findings of reduced cortical thickness in
schizophrenia subjects. I was surprised not to find the same
pattern of effects using the GLM analysis.
--
Kind regards,
Bronwyn Overs
Research Assistant
Neuroscience Research Australia
Neuroscience Research Australia
Margarete Ainsworth Building
Barker Street Randwick Sydney NSW 2031 Australia
*M* 0411 308 769 *T* +61 2 9399 1883 *F* +61 2 9399 1265
neura.edu.au <http://neura.edu.au>
Follow @neuraustralia on twitter
<https://twitter.com/neuraustralia>Follow NeuRA on facebook
<https://www.facebook.com/NeuroscienceResearchAustralia>Subscribe
to the NeuRA Magazine
<http://www.neura.edu.au/help-research/subscribe>
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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.
