Hm, it doesn't sound like a failure in the tract reconstruction then. What
areas does TBSS give you differences in? Is it in the area of the same
tracts?
On Thu, 4 Apr 2013, Sean Hatton wrote:
Hi Anastasia,
An independent T-test on the aseg.stats "WM-Hypointensties" (SegId 77) showed
that the
mean WM hypointensities volume of the patient group (1378.8mm3, SD 650mm3) did
not
significantly differ from the controls (1120.8mm3, SD 372mm3; p=.111). A
Pearson and
Spearman correlation analysis found no correlation of WMH volume with tract
volumes
but did find a correlation with FA in three of the nine tracts of interest
(Forceps
minor, left ATR, left ILF). I reviewed the T2-FLAIRs for the subjects with the
highest
volumes of WM lesions and they were all dirty-appearing white matter around the
ventricles rather than punctate WMH within the regions of these tracts.
The tracts look reasonable in Freeview… <scratching head>
Sean
On 4/04/13 7:17 AM, "Anastasia Yendiki" <ayend...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Hi Sean - Can you check their freesurfer aseg's and see if any of the
white matter was classified as a hypointensity there?
a.y
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Sean Hatton wrote:
This is Tracula 5.2 with FLIRT and the vectors are correctly aligned
(V1 over FA).
From the literature and what is seen in my TBSS is reduced FA in the minor
forceps and
ATR.
These are young (23yo) psychiatric so age related atrophy is not expected.
However,
they are known to have WM hypointensities even at a young age, I can
review their T2s.
A few are on mood stabilizers, but if this affected FA I would also see it
in TBSS.
Thoughts?
Anastasia Yendiki <ayend...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
Oh, another question: do your patients have white-mater
hypo/hyper-intensities, in other words any voxels in the white matter that
are classified as something other than white matter in the freesurfer
aseg?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Sean Hatton wrote:
> Hi Freesurfer gurus,
>
> I have been using Tracula to investigate white matter abnormalities in a
patient
> cohort (n=20) compared to matched controls (n=40). In line with the
literature, we
> expected to see reductions in FA in the patients' tracts but instead
they have
> significantly higher FA means. To double-check, we ran TBSS over the
same cohorts
and
> got the results as per the literature (I.e. reduced FA in the patient
group). The
FA,
> RD, AD, MD and volume outputs are normally distributed and there are no
extreme
> outliners. So wondering:
> 1. The patient group had significantly reduced tract volumes. If this
volume
> calculation is incorrect I expect it could influence the calculation
of the mean
> FA, RD, AD etc. Is there a way of checking the volume and subsequent
> calculations?
> 2. Yendiki et al 2011 had no corrections – do I need corrections?
> 3. Should I be thresholding tract stats?
> Thank you in advance,
>
> Sean Hatton
> Brain and Mind Research Institute
> University of Sydney
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it
is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the
e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance
HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in
error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and
properly
dispose of the e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly
dispose of the e-mail.
