.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas N Greve
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:59 PM
> To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Normalizing volumes
>
> You can look here for what stats are available
>
> https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/Morphom
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Normalizing volumes
You can look here for what stats are available
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/MorphometryStats
There is no one method that is considered the gold standard. Each will
represent a different hypothesis to test. Eg, if you
You can look here for what stats are available
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/MorphometryStats
There is no one method that is considered the gold standard. Each will
represent a different hypothesis to test. Eg, if you use whole brain
volume, then you will be looking at changes with
Hi,
We running FS 5.3 analyses on 2 cohorts (control vs. malnourished adolescents)
and I was wonderful what FS measure would be most accurate for normalizing the
volumes.
(i.e total GM, total WM, suparatentorial, etc). The eTIV measures are
significantly different between the cohorts.
Is eTIV
