Dear Kim,
This may be of interest to you:
http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038234
Cheers,
Ed
On 24 Mar, 2014, at 17:00, freesurfer-requ...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:28:29 +0900
From: jh kim
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Difference in volumes btw
Dear Prof. Fischl
Thanks for the valuable comments.
Kim
2014-03-23 3:26 GMT+09:00 Bruce Fischl :
> Hi Kim
>
> we of course always strive to make things more accurate, but in the end
> it will depend on the details of your acquisition and such. I don't think
> I have a better answer than that,
Hi Kim
we of course always strive to make things more accurate, but in the end
it will depend on the details of your acquisition and such. I don't think
I have a better answer than that, other than to say look at the
segmentations and see if you think they are more accurate in one case
than th
Dear Prof. Fischl
Thanks for the prompt response.
The more specific reason of my query is that there was a difference in
statistical significance between two FS versions.
For example, the result of group comparison of left thalamic volumes
(ANCOVA controlling for age and eICV) is statistically si
Hi Kim
there are probably lots of little reasons for the differences. This is
always true for different versions, and the reason we never mix versions
cheers
Bruce
On
Sun, 23 Mar 2014, jh kim wrote:
> Dear FS lists
> When I measured subcortical GM volumes in the same subjects by using both
> v
Dear FS lists
When I measured subcortical GM volumes in the same subjects by using both
version 5.1 and 5.3, I have observed a considerable difference in volumes
between the two versions.
For instance, please see the left thalamic volumes below.
I cannot figure out why there is much difference bet
