Hi Bruce,
There is aseg.stats. Is it brain segmentation volume?
And in QDEC, I study the relationship between age and the cortical
thickness, volume and surface area. The eTIV for volume and surface area
should be set in Nuisance Factors, but for thickness, it's not need. Is right?
Thanks,
Zheng
At 2017-11-22 11:07:36, "Bruce Fischl" <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>no, eTIV is the estimated volume of the intracranial vault, so it
>included sulcal CSF. I think we include a whole brain volume in the
>aseg.stats file that you can use, although I don't remember what it's
>called
>
>cheers
>Bruce
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruce,
>> Thank you very much. I will try it. And I have another question. I also
>> want to study the
>> relation between age and the whole brain volume, gray matter volume and
>> white matter volume. The
>> whole brain volume is the same as eTIV, is right?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Zheng
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 2017-11-22 10:29:43, "Bruce Fischl" <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> >you would include it as a nuisance variable in the glm
>> >On Wed, 22 Nov 2017,
>> >郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for your quick reply. These results are not correted by eTIV,
>> >> If eTIV are corrected,
>> I
>> >> can only get the p value and scatter plot, I can't get the line trend. Do
>> >> you know how to get the
>> >> line trend with eTIV corrected as these results?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Zheng
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 在 2017-11-22 10:14:16，"Bruce Fischl" <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> 写道：
>> >> >is this eTIV corrected? I would look at some of the outliers and make
>> >> >sure that the segmentations are accurate. Certainly the trend is in the
>> >> >correct (and depressing) direction.
>> >> >
>> >> >cheers
>> >> >Bruce
>> >> >On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks for your advice. There are a part of the result. Blue color
>> >> >> stands women, and Red c
>> olo
>> >> r
>> >> >> stands men.
>> >> >> The number of the data is not enough large. Are they ok? May I use
>> >> >> them in my paper?
>> >> >> [IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks a lot !
>> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At 2017-11-20 10:15:49, "Bruce Fischl" <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I would scatter plot age vs. volume, coloring men and women
>> >> >> >differently
>> >> >> >(or different symbols) with and without eTIV correction to get an
>> >> >> >idea of
>> >> >> >what is going on
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >cheers
>> >> >> >Bruce
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Nov
>> >> >> >2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My data is loss from 35 to 40. But the uniform of sex is not
>> >> >> >> well from 40 to 55 and from
>> 56
>> >> to
>> >> >> >> 71. I did the correlation analysis between age and volume. I don't
>> >> >> >> know how I can explain t
>> his
>> >> >> >> problem.
>> >> >> >> Thanks again.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Sincerely,
>> >> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> At 2017-11-20 09:35:45, "Bruce Fischl" <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >how uniform is your distribution? I'm hardly an expert on this,
>> >> >> >> >but I
>> >> >> >> >wouldn't expect very large effects until you get into the older
>> >> >> >> >end of
>> >> >> >> >that range. Have you scatter plotted your data?
>> >> >> >> >Bruce
>> >> >> >> >On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲
>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thank you for your help.
>> >> >> >> >> I have 54 subjects, aged from 21 to 71 and only one group.
>> >> >> >> >> I want to compare the ch
>> ang
>> >> e o
>> >> >> f
>> >> >> >> >> hippocampus volume with age. The results before and after doing
>> >> >> >> >> the correction for eTIV
>> are
>> >> th
>> >> >> e
>> >> >> >> >> same. Where is wrong? Or if there is no error, how can I explain
>> >> >> >> >> it in discussion?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> At 2017-11-20 04:55:49, "Bruce Fischl"
>> >> >> >> >> <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >yes, I see. Maybe the effect is smaller than you have the power
>> >> >> >> >> >to see, or
>> >> >> >> >> >there is no effect? You would need to give us more details for
>> >> >> >> >> >us to help.
>> >> >> >> >> >Are you correcting for eTIV? What measure are you comparing?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >cheers
>> >> >> >> >> >Bruce
>> >> >> >> >> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I am sorry for this situation.
>> >> >> >> >> >> In the first way, there was an statistical difference in
>> >> >> >> >> >> left hippocampus, but n
>> o d
>> >> iff
>> >> >> ere
>> >> >> >> nce
>> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> >> right hippocampus. In the second way, there was both no
>> >> >> >> >> >> statistical difference in lef
>> t o
>> >> r
>> >> >> >> >> >> right hippocampus. I don't know what causes this result.
>> >> >> >> >> >> Can you understand me this time?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> >> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> At 2017-11-18 22:58:56, "Bruce Fischl"
>> >> >> >> >> >> <fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >no difference between what and what?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >cheers
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Bruce
>> >> >> >> >> >> >On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi professor,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am using Freesurfer for DTI data. When I run
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> 'mri_segstats', I
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> got the result that there w
>> >> >> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> an obvious difference in left hippocampus, but no
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> difference in right hippocampus.
>> Th
>> >> en,
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> >> run
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> segmentation of hippocampus subfields. The result showed
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> there is no difference in
>> to
>> >> tal
>> >> >> le
>> >> >> >> ft
>> >> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> right hippocampus, and only in two right hippocampus
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> subfields has significant dif
>> fer
>> >> enc
>> >> >> e.
>> >> >> >> Why
>> >> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> there inconsistent result in two means?
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thank you very much.
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
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.
