is.
>>
>> Chris
>> __**__
>> From:
>> freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.**harvard.edu[
>> freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.**harvard.edu]
>> on behalf of Bruce Fischl [fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1
.edu] on behalf of Bruce Fischl
> [fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:59 AM
> To: Jorge Jovicich
> Cc: Sinead Kelly; freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness analysis on data acquired from
> multiple sites
>
> Hi
d.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness analysis on data acquired from
multiple sites
Hi Sinead
I agree with Jorge - there is bound to be a substantial scanner effect. You
might be better off keeping the data separate and treating the 3T as a
confirmatory study.
cheers
Bruce
On
Mon, 18
Hi Sinead
I agree with Jorge - there is bound to be a substantial scanner effect. You
might be better off keeping the data separate and treating the 3T as a
confirmatory study.
cheers
Bruce
On
Mon, 18 Feb 2013, Jorge Jovicich wrote:
> Dear Sinead,
>
> we found global significant difference
Dear Sinead,
we found global significant differences in thickness between 1.5T and
3T, in a group of subjects that was scanned at both scanners
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16651008). I think that nothing
stops you from doing the analysis, but maybe model in a field effect to
asset it i
Dear members,
I would like to get your opinion on this issue - I have a dataset of over
400 subjects but under half of this data was acquired on a 1.5T scanner and
the rest was acquired on a 3T scanner. Would it be acceptable to conduct
cortical thickness analysis on the combined dataset? From rea
