CWP was 0.0007 now it is 0.0008)
I wanted to make sure if the newer results are due to version change or if
I am probably going wrong somewhere.
Thank you,
Regards,
Vikas Bandalli Raju
--
Vikas B. R.
Medical student
Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI),
Bangalore,India,
Ph
*
i.e, *fixed factor :- Diagnosis & Sex *
How will my analysis vary with and without using sex as fixed factor ?
Which is the correct design?
Thank you very much in advance.
Regards,
Vikas Bandalli Raju
--
Vikas B. R.
Medical student
Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMC
Dear Freesurfers,
Sorry if the question sounds too basic.
1. I am running an analysis on qdec with paired groups - normal and
patients,
To control for IntraCranialVolume(ICV),I am adding it as an 'nuisance
factor',Is it correct?
The suggested mode to add ICV to the tabled was to *demean* the ICV.
ect the error is highly appreciated .
Regards,
Vikas Bandalli
--
Vikas B. R.
Medical student
Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI),
Bangalore,India,
Ph : +918904286825
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.n
for all reporting purposes .
I hope to hear from you soon.
Regards ,
Vikas Bandalli Raju
--
Vikas B. R.
Medical student
Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute (BMCRI),
Bangalore,India,
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Dear Freesurfer Team,
I am facing a discrepancy in the result when I run a Monte Carlo Z
simulation. I have a group with 3 levels(normal,Non-psychotic and
psychotic).I tried running an analysis to c the variation in cortical
thickness between the same groups in the QDEC GUI,but since iit was
impos