Hello all


I have found non-negligeable differences in eTIV for 5.3 versus 6.0 in my 
healthy young sample

It is probably due to the cerebellum computation changes (presented in released 
notes for 6.0)

Unsurprisingly the supratentorial volumes 5.3 versus 6.0 are very similar

(all was checked by simple correlations)

Could people who have good knowledge of cerebellum studies  comment on the 
reliability of freesurfer 5.3 in assessing size of the cerebellum versus manual 
tracing? This may need to be redone for version 6.0.



Lucette A. Cysique, Ph.D.

NHMRC Clinical Career Development Fellow / UNSW Medicine 2013-2017
NeuroHIV and Quantitative Neuropsychology Group Leader @ NeuRA
Senior Lecturer SoMs, UNSW Medicine
Affiliated senior researcher at the St. Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Applied 
Medical Research Centre, Peter Duncan Neuroscience Unit

Postal Address:
Neuroscience Research Australia
PO Box 1165 (Street Address: 139 Barker Street)
Randwick NSW 2031

Office Ph: +61 2 9399 1880
Mobile Ph: (+61)  (0)431 576 710 (text preferred)

lcysi...@unsw.edu.au (primary)
lucette.cysi...@svha.org.au (St. Vincent's Hospital Sydney, related project)
lcysi...@ucsd.edu (HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center/UCSD related project)
Twitter: @Lucette_C
Freesurfer mailing list

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.

Reply via email to