On 6/5/2020 4:47 PM, Sneha Pandya wrote:

        External Email - Use Caution

Thank you Doug.

it is not run by default

  * When I ran “samseg2recon –s subject” after running samseg, it did
    not do anything different, am I missing anything?

What do you mean it did not do anything different? What is your samseg command?

 *


Yes, a lot of file names changed. You should look at the seg.stats file

  * We did not get seg.stats as an output file when we ran 2019 dev
    version. We just got samseg.stats under subject/mri/samseg folder.
    In that case which file should we consider, or something went
    wrong if it did not generate this file.

the samseg.stats file has been renamed to seg.stats

Besides, when we ran samseg in  2019 we had used mri/T1.mgz file as an input. Will this be a problem based on your suggestion in *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "urldefense.proofpoint.com" claiming to be* https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg65310.html <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_freesurfer-40nmr.mgh.harvard.edu_msg65310.html&d=DwMD-g&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=AEsux002jQ5JzIPYIcsXKAuQmrt-1dubP8ZVldIiOrE&m=un8Achn1Kt93JCywHWWuT6jklJQN9oHoIkuwkrPoxZs&s=qZGTSXTP2Z20WAcwAP2PqaGmpK9af6Is_k_VrittVlk&e=>

  * Should we rerun our subjects with orig.mgz or with raw dicom or
    nifti file?

Use the orig.mgz, not the T1.mgz. file format is unimportant

 *

Thank you,

Sneha

*From: *Douglas N. Greve <mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>
*Sent: *Friday, June 5, 2020 4:05 PM
*To: *freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
*Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [Freesurfer] samseg with subfields {Disarmed}

On 6/5/2020 3:54 PM, Sneha Pandya wrote:

    *        External Email - Use Caution *

    Dear Dough,

    Is samseg2recon run by default when we run just samseg command?
    After samseg is completed it displays towards the end samseg2recon
    run time in sec and hours, right before computation time of samseg
    as below. If it is called by samseg command itself there would be
    no need to run samseg2recon separately after samseg command right
    unless it is doing something in addition?

    Started at Fri Jun 5 12:49:50 EDT 2020

    Ended   at Fri Jun  5 12:51:57 EDT 2020

    Samseg2recon-Run-Time-Sec 127

    Samseg2recon-Run-Time-Hours 0.04

    samseg2recon Done

    Started at Fri Jun 5 12:27:43 EDT 2020

    Ended   at Fri Jun  5 12:51:57 EDT 2020

    Samseg-Run-Time-Min 24.23

    Samseg-Run-Time-Hours 0.40

it is not run by default.


    I had ran few subjects with samseg from Freesurfer dev version in
    Oct of 2019 and compared it with samseg version from Freesurfer
    v7.1.0 and realized that some file names are different. Samseg
    from dev version I ran in 2019 created file t1w_biasCorrected.nii,
    t1w_biasField.nii, t1w_crispSegmentation.nii names under
    saubject/mri/samseg directory and Freesurfer v7.1.0 creates
    mode01_bias_corrected.mgz, mode01_bias_field.mgz, seg.mgz files. I
    assume these files should be comparable across these two versions
    right? Also, I do not see seg.stats file when I ran with dev
    version in 2019. Which stat file am I suppose to consider in lieu
    of seg.stats file when I ran with 2019 dev version?

Yes, a lot of file names changed. You should look at the seg.stats file


    Besides, when we ran samseg in  2019 we had used mri/T1.mgz file
    as an input. Will this be a problem based on your suggestion in
    *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
    "urldefense.proofpoint.com" claiming to be*
    https://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg65310.html
    
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.mail-2Darchive.com_freesurfer-40nmr.mgh.harvard.edu_msg65310.html&d=DwMD-g&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=AEsux002jQ5JzIPYIcsXKAuQmrt-1dubP8ZVldIiOrE&m=un8Achn1Kt93JCywHWWuT6jklJQN9oHoIkuwkrPoxZs&s=qZGTSXTP2Z20WAcwAP2PqaGmpK9af6Is_k_VrittVlk&e=>


    Thank you,

    Sneha

    *From: *Douglas N. Greve <mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>
    *Sent: *Tuesday, May 5, 2020 11:38 AM
    *To: *freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
    <mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
    *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [Freesurfer] samseg with subfields

    In theory it is possible, though I don't know if it is better or
    worse. You can run samseg, then run samseg2recon (this creates a
    folder that looks like it was created by recon-all), then run
    subfields on that folder

    On 5/5/2020 10:45 AM, Sneha Pandya wrote:

        *        External Email - Use Caution *

        Dear experts,

        I want to revisit if anyone has ran subfield analysis just by
        running samseg? If it is possible is it as reliable as from
        running regular routine with “-all” recon-all flag?

        Thank you,

        Sneha

        *From:* Sneha Pandya
        *Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:15 PM
        *To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
        <mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
        *Subject:* samseg with subfields

        Dear experts,

        Is it possible to run subfield analysis (hippcampal subfields,
        amygdalar, thalamic nuclei, and brainstem structures) when we
        only run samseg on our dataset?

        Thank you,

        Sneha




        _______________________________________________

        Freesurfer mailing list

        Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu  <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

        *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
        "urldefense.proofpoint.com" claiming to be*
        https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer  
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu_mailman_listinfo_freesurfer&d=DwMD-g&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=AEsux002jQ5JzIPYIcsXKAuQmrt-1dubP8ZVldIiOrE&m=ZcRwF0g_TOQUS7q9Ip9PNRLVW7xP32AuzLy27Bqt7sU&s=1JOezYk0f3Rm2CGmy4t2lDlZRmpNqY-iPUnty5HzLro&e=>



    _______________________________________________

    Freesurfer mailing list

    Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu  <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

    *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
    "urldefense.proofpoint.com" claiming to be*
    https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer  
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu_mailman_listinfo_freesurfer&d=DwMD-g&c=lb62iw4YL4RFalcE2hQUQealT9-RXrryqt9KZX2qu2s&r=AEsux002jQ5JzIPYIcsXKAuQmrt-1dubP8ZVldIiOrE&m=un8Achn1Kt93JCywHWWuT6jklJQN9oHoIkuwkrPoxZs&s=YU1wU8SjwDRmOktDd2GxYQ91v0tRsU3H3XASSLBQAvs&e=>


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to