On 10/30/2009 12:12 PM, Danny Kim wrote:
> Hi Donna,
>
> Thanks again for your comments and answers.
> When can we expect to see the baby brain atlas available on SumsDB?

A rational person would not be afraid of jinxing a paper's acceptance.  
As it happens, I'm not all that rational, so afraid I am.

It is not inaccurate to say that I hope SumsDB will have a populated 
directory for this paper by Christmas.

That said, we didn't really use a *volumetric* baby atlas for the papers 
we coathored with Jason Hill, Jeff Neil, Terrie Inder, et. al.  I 
believe Chris Smyser 
(http://neuro.wustl.edu/aboutus/facultybiographies/smyser.htm), also 
working with Neil/Inder, Jason Hill and Avi Snyder, may have developed 
one for his functional connectivity studies.  I do not know whether this 
atlas was or will be made public.
>
> Appreciate all the help, and I look forward to seeing your group's 
> work on neonatal atlases!
The surface atlases certainly will be made public -- hopefully sooner 
rather than later.
>
> Best of wishes and happy Halloween!
Mine was good; hope yours was, too.
>
>
>
> Danny Kim
> Brainmapping
> Dept. of Neurology
> BC Children's Hospital
> Vancouver, BC
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:12 AM, Donna Dierker 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi Danny,
>
>     See inline replies below.
>
>     Donna
>
>     > Hi Donna,
>     >
>     > thanks for getting back to me quickly :)
>     >
>     > I forgot to mention. I created the surface from a T1 image of a
>     preterm
>     > baby
>     > brain. I managed to segment the white matter via utilizing
>     Freesurfer to
>     > get
>     > the bias-corrected T1 normalization image and Brainvisa's anatomic
>     > pipeline
>     > to acquire wm/gm masks. Then I used SPM to extract the WM mask
>     from the
>     > gm/wm mask. When the mask came out it resembled a paintball
>     blast mark and
>     > had the ventricles and the thalami/basal ganglia structures not
>     > highlighted
>     > so I did some very quick manual correction.
>     >
>     > and thus the freakish surface was born :)
>
>     Okay.  Someday Freesurfer may segment baby brains, but currently the
>     contrasts properties of the baby brain make this a suboptimal
>     solution.
>     >
>     > THANKS for letting me know about the surface being registered to the
>     > 711-2B
>     > space and about the ROI volumes.
>
>     Even we haven't tried auto-landmarks on baby brains, and we have no
>     immediate plans to do so.  Nor do we register baby brains to
>     711-2B.  We
>     do have some baby atlases we use.
>
>     >
>     > I'll see if I can register the images to 711-2B space to see if
>     there is a
>     > difference. Also I'll try to spend more time in manually filling
>     in the
>     > ventricle and correcting the segmentation.
>
>     This segmentation seems beyond manual patching to me.
>     >
>     > btw, I saw from the Caret's wiki page that the lab is
>     collaborating with
>     > Terrie Inder's group in studying Human cortical development.
>     > How did you acquire that developing cortical surface image on
>     the wiki
>     > page
>     > (see attached), b/c that looks really good.
>
>     Jason Hill (MSTP student who has completed PhD work and is now in
>     clinical
>     rotations) and Andy Knutsen (preparing to defend his thesis)
>     developed an
>     algorithm called LIGASE to segment the baby brains.  They still needed
>     some manual patching, but the quality was pretty good, if not
>     excellent.
>     I'm pretty sure they used the T2, rather than the T1.
>
>     We are in the process of addressing reviewer comments on a paper
>     describing these methods and the term control atlas Jason
>     produced.  We
>     hope to have a citation for you soon.
>
>     Maybe David will post his SfN poster on our ftp site.  It covers
>     this work.
>
>     If you are serious about generating surfaces of baby brains, getting
>     LIGASE might be worth your while.  It runs on matlab.  I think
>     there may
>     be some documentation.  Jason is super busy and not as available as he
>     might wish to answer user questions, but I can promise the resulting
>     segmentations and surfaces are nearly as pretty as the city where you
>     live.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     >
>     >
>     > Danny Kim
>     > Brainmapping
>     > Dept. of Neurology
>     > BC Children's Hospital
>     > Vancouver, BC
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Donna Dierker
>     > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
>     >
>     >> On 10/29/2009 02:39 PM, Danny Kim wrote:
>     >> > Hi fellow caret users,
>     >> >
>     >> > This is my first time posting a question to the mailing list.
>     Forgive
>     >> > me if I leave out anything important or formality. I'll try
>     to include
>     >> > everything I know.
>     >> >
>     >> > so I've been trying to landmark and paint the sulci of this
>     brain (see
>     >> > attached photos of Lateral and Medial view of resulted
>     fiducial and
>     >> > inflated surfaces).
>     >> Well, it's almost Halloween, so I guess scary images are seasonally
>     >> appropriate.  But I must say, that is a pretty hideous fiducial
>     surface
>     >> you have there -- lots of appendages and handle-like spindles.
>      Did you
>     >> tessellate something like a FSL fast segmentation?
>     >> >
>     >> > I keep getting paint Sul.CeS not found and the automatic landmark
>     >> > labeling does not go to finish in surefit segmentation.
>     >> I just got that error today myself.  In my case, it was because
>     I was
>     >> running auto-landmarks and feeding it a bad Depth
>     column-name/number.
>     >> But you might also see that error if your spec file has more
>     than one
>     >> anatomical volume in it.  It just always seems to be that error
>     whenever
>     >> auto-landmarks fails.
>     >>
>     >> In your case, I can't be sure what caused it to fail.  It could
>     be that
>     >> your surface isn't in 711-2B stereotaxic space.  Eventually,
>     we'd like
>     >> to add handling to make the process of getting surfaces into
>     711-2B more
>     >> seemless.  But we're not there yet.
>     >>
>     >> But really you're going to have to improve the quality of the
>     >> segmentation that generated this surface before registeration makes
>     >> sense.
>     >> >
>     >> > How does the automatic paint generation of the core6
>     landmark, and
>     >> > other sulci labels actually work? By my understanding, Caret,
>     once it
>     >> > finds the sylvian fissure correctly, should be able to locate the
>     >> > central sulcus shouldn't it? and after that it should find
>     all the
>     >> > other sulci paints by using the B12 atlas.
>     >> This isn't really documented/published anywhere, as far as I
>     know.  I'll
>     >> give you my oversimplified take on it:  The surface must be in
>     711-2B,
>     >> so that the probabilistic volumes in your
>     >> $CARET_HOME/data_files/sulcal_identification directory align
>     properly
>     >> with it.  Several ROI volumes (e.g., CeS, HF, SF) are mapped to the
>     >> surface, thereby forming surface ROIs, which are intersected with
>     >> thresholded Depth metrics to pinpoint the location of key
>     anatomical
>     >> structures.  Borders are drawn and trimmed to our Core 6 landmark
>     >> specifications.
>     >> > thank you all for any suggestion/input/critique!
>     >> >
>     >> >
>     >> > Cheers,
>     >> >
>     >> > Danny Kim
>     >> > Brainmapping
>     >> > Dept. of Neurology
>     >> > BC Children's Hospital
>     >> > Vancouver, BC
>

_______________________________________________
caret-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://brainvis.wustl.edu/mailman/listinfo/caret-users

Reply via email to