Dear all,
the current module in FreeSurfer works with 1mm T1 data, by relying on strong 
shape priors. So, at this point, feeding the algorithm data from a 3T scanner 
or a 1.5T scanner is pretty much the same.
Joshua, it is indeed inaccurate to say that the method relies on a generated 
hippocampal surface, but you are definitely right regarding the SLRM: it is not 
modeled at this point (we have a new version that models it coming out 
hopefully soon!).
Cheers,
/Eugenio


Juan Eugenio Iglesias
Postdoctoral researcher BCBL
www.jeiglesias.com
www.bcbl.eu

Legal disclaimer/Aviso legal/Lege-oharra: www.bcbl.eu/legal-disclaimer


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua Lee" <[email protected]>
To: "Freesurfer support list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 2:10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Hippocampal subfields on 1.5 Tesla




Hi Alan, 

Typically subfields segmentation requires hi-resolution data (e.g. 0.4 x 0.4 mm 
in-plane resolution). The thickness of a CA subfield typically range between 
0.5-1.00 mm, but 1.5 T data does not achieve sub-millimeter resolutions. 
Further, subfield segmentation typically requires high-contrast data to discern 
the internal boundaries formed by the stratum radiatum/stratum 
lacunosum-moleculare (SLRM). I doubt that images produced on a 1.5 T magnet can 
achieve the necessary contrast. Last, and please someone correct me if what I 
say is inaccurate, but doesn't the Van Leemput method use statistical priors to 
apply label probabilities in reference to a generated hippocampal surface? This 
would imply that the method assigns label probabilities without reference to a 
subject's SLRM intensity information. For volumetry, I am somewhat skeptical 
that a method that only relies on a generated surface would be sensitive to 
group x subfield interactions; especially double dissociations in which ove
 rall volume/shape of the hippocampus may be similar across groups. That the 
that was generated from potentially low resolution, low contrast data cannot 
help the matter. Some may disagree about this though and I'd be interested in 
hearing what other people think about the matter. In general, I am quite 
optimistic about automated methods to segment the subfields. 




Joshua 







- 

Joshua K. Lee 
Doctoral Candidate 

Department of Psychology & 
Center for Mind and Brain University of California, Davis 




On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Alan Francis < [email protected] > 
wrote: 



Hi Bruce and FreeSurfers: 

I have received a manuscript to review for possible publication. The authors 
have used the subfields algorithm on 1.5T scans and obtained a parcellation 
with values. They have drawn some major conclusions on the basis of the 
findings. My understanding is that this method can only be done on 3T. Is the 
1.5T results valid? 

Please advice. 

thanks, 

Alan Francis 
_______________________________________________ 
Freesurfer mailing list 
[email protected] 
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. 



_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
[email protected]
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.

_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Reply via email to