I did not necessarily have any reservations about the method, I just did 
not want my reply to be misinterpreted as an actual endorsement. BTW, 
you might want to check out our recent pub on this topic

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=greve+fdg


On 11/18/2016 12:38 PM, Elijah Mak wrote:
>
>
>   Hi Doug,
>
>
> Thanks for taking a look at the commands!  I appreciate it.
>
> I would like to ask a further question about your concern/s regarding 
> this approach?
> My aim was to have an analytical pipeline in Freesurfer that is 
> analogous to several studies (using VBM-type of analyses in SPM) where 
> they compared the relative severity of various pathological processes 
> measured from different modalities. For reference, 
> see:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24951642 
> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24951642> In that study, the 
> authors in that study were trying to examine whether hypometabolism 
> was relatively more severe compared to atrophy, and both 
> modalities(PET and T1) were Z-scored relative to controls, and then 
> compared against each other.
> Best Wishes,
> Elijah
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Elijah Mak <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
>       Hi Doug,
>
>     Thanks for taking a look at the commands!
>     I would like to ask a further question about your concern/s
>     regarding this approach? My aim was to have an analytical pipeline
>     in Freesurfer that is analogous to several studies (using VBM-type
>     of analyses in SPM) where they compared the relative severity of
>     various pathological processes measured from different modalities.
>     I have attached a little screenshot for your reference.
>     For example, the authors in that study were trying to see whether
>     hypometabolism was relatively more severe compared to atrophy, and
>     both modalites (PET and T1) were Z-scored relative to controls,
>     and then compared against each other. Another study that has used
>     a similar technique is here:
>     https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24951642
>     <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24951642>
>     Best Wishes,
>     Elijah
>
>
>       Re: [Freesurfer] Comparing z score maps between 2 modalities in
>       a group?
>       
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%5C%3A+%5C%5BFreesurfer%5C%5D+Comparing+z+score+maps+between+2+modalities+in+a+group%5C%3F%22&o=newest>
>
>     Douglas N Greve
>     
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22Douglas+N+Greve%22>
>     Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:19:47 -0800
>     
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20161118>
>
>     Those commands look right, though I would do the smoothing before
>     computing the standard dev. Also, I don't know whether your
>     overall method is valid.
>
>     On 11/15/2016 05:48 PM, Elijah Mak wrote: > Hi Freesurfer Team, >
>     > We would like to compare Z-scored surface maps between different
>     > modalities (MRI and PET) within a single group. 1 subject = 2
>     measures. > > These are my steps so far, using mri_concat and
>     fscalc for the > generation of the Z score maps. Differences
>     between Z-score maps are > tested using the paired t-test approach
>     as outlined here: >
>     https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/PairedAnalysis
>     <https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/PairedAnalysis> > > I
>     am not sure if my following steps are correct, so confirmation
>     will > be much appreciated, many thanks for your time and help! >
>     > // Generate mean/sd of healthy controls > > X > mri_concat --f
>     stacks_X_lh_HC_fsaverage --o group_mean_X_hc_lh.mgh --mean >
>     mri_concat --f stacks_X_lh_HC_fsaverage --o group_std_X_hc_lh.mgh
>     --std > > Y > mri_concat --f stacks__Y_HC_fsaverage --o
>     group_mean_Y_HC_lh.mgh --mean > mri_concat --f
>     stacks_Y_lh_HC_fsaverage --o group_std_Y_HC_lh.mgh --std > > QN:
>     Should smoothing be applied here or before? > > // Derive
>     individual Z-score map for X and Y > > X > for i in `cat list`; do
>     fscalc $i/surf/lh.X.fsaverage.mgh sub > group_mean_X_hc_lh.mgh div
>     group_std_X_hc_lh.mgh --o > $i/surf/lh.Z.thickness.fsaverage.mgh;
>     done > for i in `cat list; do fscalc $i/surf/rh.X.fsaverage.mgh
>     sub > group_mean_cth_hc_rh.mgh div group_std_X_hc_rh.mgh --o >
>     $i/surf/rh.Z.thickness.
>     fsaverage.mgh; done > > Y > for i in `cat list`; do fscalc
>     $i/surf/lh.Y.fsaverage.mgh sub > group_mean_X_hc_lh.mgh div
>     group_std_cth_hc_lh.mgh --o > $i/surf/lh.Z.fsaverage.mgh; done >
>     for i in `cat list; do fscalc $i/surf/rh.Y.fsaverage.mgh sub >
>     group_mean_Y_hc_rh.mgh div group_std_Y_hc_rh.mgh --o >
>     $i/surf/rh.Z.fsaverage.mgh; done > > > // Derive paired-difference
>     of Z scores between X and Y > > mri_concat --f stacks_XminusY_lh
>     --paired-diff --o concat_XminusY_lh.mgh > mri_concat --f
>     stacks_XminusY_rh --paired-diff --o concat_XminusY_rh.mgh > > //
>     Smooth concatenated maps of paired differences > > mri_surf2surf
>     --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 4 --sval > concat_XminusY_lh.mgh
>     --tval concat_XminusY_lh_sm4.mgh > > // Test significance of
>     paired differences within the group > > mri_glmfit --y
>     concat_XminusY_lh_sm4.mgh --fsgd fsgd_pairediff dods > --osgm
>     --surf fsaverage lh --cortex --glmdir > > I used the --osgm flag
>     as there are no covariates here. > > > > > > > >
>     _______________________________________________ > Freesurfer
>     mailing list > [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> >
>     https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>     <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer> --
>     Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]> Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax:
>     617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
>     <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting> FileDrop:
>     https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/filedrop2
>     <https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/filedrop2>
>     www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
>     <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>
>     Outgoing:
>     ftp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/transfer/outgoing/flat/greve/
>     <ftp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/transfer/outgoing/flat/greve/>
>     _______________________________________________ Freesurfer mailing
>     list [email protected]
>     <mailto:[email protected]>
>     https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>     <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
>     <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
-- 
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
[email protected]
Phone Number: 617-724-2358
Fax: 617-726-7422

Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
FileDrop: https://gate.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/filedrop2
www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
Outgoing: ftp://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/transfer/outgoing/flat/greve/
_______________________________________________
Freesurfer mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Reply via email to