And, a minor clarification on one of the ROIs in question-- I should have phrase the comment about ROI #80 as follows: 80 non-WM-hypointensities -------> *should be in list of FS_nongm?
... since the name clearly implies that it is non-WM. Basically, I am first wanting to check that the above list of ROIs does form the "whole brain" returned by recon-all; there are a lot more ROIs listed in the LUT, of all sorts of tissue types, but it seems like those don't often appear in the output. And following on that, it seems like presently a map of various non-GM tissues is made by summing up ROIs of a given type, and then: GM_map = whole_brain - WM_map - CSF_map - vent_map. However, am I interpreting things correctly that the four ROIs flagged above (#30, 62, 80 and 85) seem to be an "other" class that should be subtracted away from the whole_brain, as well, such that: GM_map = whole_brain - WM_map - CSF_map - vent_map - other_four_regions ? Thanks, pt On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:04 AM, P Taylor <neon.tay...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Doug- > > > I've looked more into my earlier question of identifying FS-returned > regions, in particular: > 1) which regions of the whole FreeSurferColorLUT.txt seem to get returned > by default recon-all calls (for either the 2000- or 2009-parc+segs); and > 2) which of those regions are GM and non-GM (WM/CSF/other), based both on > the mri_binarize list you had posted earlier in this thread and on the > names given in the LUT. > > I'd like to pick your brain on this. > > A) The main questions I have relate to the regions labeled from [0, 256], > which seem have the same labelling in both the 2000 and 2009 parc+segs. > From a few different FreeSurfer recon-alls on healthy adults, below is a > list of the ROIs that seem to be consistently returned by recon-all (a much > sparser subset than all 256). > For each, I have included the number and label, as well as put arrows by > the numbers that, according to the MatchValues list in mri_binarize, should > be in either the WM or Vent masks, (and hence non-arrowed regions should be > GM, by how that function returns "--gm"). > My main questions arise about #30, 62, 80 and 85, as they don't appear to > be GM-- therefore, am I correct that I should also *exclude* those four > regions from a list of GM regions? > (Here, "FS_nongm*" means that it was in the list of non-GM regions in > mri_binarize, as either unknown, WM, CSF or ventricle.) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------------------------------- > 0 Unknown -> FS_nongm > > 2 Left-Cerebral-White-Matter -> FS_nongm_wm > > 4 Left-Lateral-Ventricle -> FS_nongm_vent > 5 Left-Inf-Lat-Vent -> FS_nongm_vent > > 7 Left-Cerebellum-White-Matter -> FS_nongm_wm > 8 Left-Cerebellum-Cortex > > 10 Left-Thalamus-Proper > 11 Left-Caudate > 12 Left-Putamen > 13 Left-Pallidum > 14 3rd-Ventricle -> FS_nongm_vent > 15 4th-Ventricle -> FS_nongm_vent > 16 Brain-Stem > 17 Left-Hippocampus > 18 Left-Amygdala > > 24 CSF -> FS_nongm_csf > > 26 Left-Accumbens-area > > 28 Left-VentralDC > > 30 Left-vessel -------> *should be in list of FS_nongm? > 31 Left-choroid-plexus -> FS_nongm_vent > > 41 Right-Cerebral-White-Matter -> FS_nongm_wm > > 43 Right-Lateral-Ventricle -> FS_nongm_vent > 44 Right-Inf-Lat-Vent -> FS_nongm_vent > > 46 Right-Cerebellum-White-Matter -> FS_nongm_wm > 47 Right-Cerebellum-Cortex > > 49 Right-Thalamus-Proper > 50 Right-Caudate > > 52 Right-Pallidum > 53 Right-Hippocampus > 54 Right-Amygdala > > 58 Right-Accumbens-area > > 60 Right-VentralDC > > 62 Right-vessel -------> *should be in list of FS_nongm? > 63 Right-choroid-plexus -> FS_nongm_vent > > 72 5th-Ventricle -> FS_nongm_vent > > 77 WM-hypointensities -> FS_nongm_wm > > 80 non-WM-hypointensities -------> *should be in list of FS_nongm_wm? > > 85 Optic-Chiasm -------> *should be in list of FS_nongm? > > 251 CC_Posterior -> FS_nongm_wm > 252 CC_Mid_Posterior -> FS_nongm_wm > 253 CC_Central -> FS_nongm_wm > 254 CC_Mid_Anterior -> FS_nongm_wm > 255 CC_Anterior -> FS_nongm_wm > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------------- > > It seem that the new version of mri_binarize that you had sent me might > still include those four flagged regions in the 'mri_binarize --gm' output. > > > B) For the ROIs specific to the 2000aparc+aseg, I think it also seems > pretty clear: > + 1000 and 2000 are returned as "ctx_*_unknown"; > + All ROIs in the intervals [1001, 1003] and [1005, 1035] can be returned, > and these are all LH GM; > + All ROIs in the intervals [2001, 2003] and [2005, 2035] can be returned, > and these are all RH GM; > + ROIs '1004' and '2004' are the "ctx-?h-corpuscallosum", which would be > WM, but they don't seem to be returned. > > > C) For the ROIs specific to 2009aparc+aseg, I think it also seems pretty > clear: > + 11100 and 12100 are returned as "ctx_*_Unknown"; > + All ROIs in the intervals [11101, 11141] and [11143, 11175] can be > returned, and these are all LH GM; > + All ROIs in the intervals [12101, 12141] and [12143, 12175] can be > returned, and these are all RH GM; > + ROIs '11142' and '12142' are the "ctx_?h_Medial_wall", which would be > non-GM, but they don't seem to be returned. > > > D) And you mentioned that the regions in the interval [3000, 4035] are WM > parcellations. > > > So, in total, does that seem like a complete categorization of regions > that are typically returned, as well as their classification as either GM > or non-GM? And in particular, I would be happy to know your thoughts on > the flagged ROIs in the interval [0, 256]. > > > Thanks, > pt >
_______________________________________________ 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.
