Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your quick reply. These results are not correted by eTIV, If
eTIV are corrected, I
can only get the p value and scatter plot, I can't get the line trend. Do you
know how to get the
line trend with eTIV corrected as these results?
Thanks,
Zheng
在 2017-11-22 10:14:16，"Bruce Fischl" <[email protected]> 写道：
>is this eTIV corrected? I would look at some of the outliers and make
>sure that the segmentations are accurate. Certainly the trend is in the
>correct (and depressing) direction.
>
>cheers
>Bruce
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>
>> Hi Bruce,
>>
>> Thanks for your advice. There are a part of the result. Blue color stands women, and Red colo
r
>> stands men.
>> The number of the data is not enough large. Are they ok? May I use them
in my paper?
>> [IMAGE][IMAGE][IMAGE]
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot !
>> Zheng
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 2017-11-20 10:15:49, "Bruce Fischl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Hi Zheng
>> >
>> >I would scatter plot age vs. volume, coloring men and women differently
>> >(or different symbols) with and without eTIV correction to get an idea of
>> >what is going on
>> >
>> >cheers
>> >Bruce
>> >
>> >
>> >On Mon, 20 Nov
>> >2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >>
>> >> My data is loss from 35 to 40. But the uniform of sex is not well from
40 to 55 and from 56
to
>> >> 71. I did the correlation analysis between age and volume. I don't know
how I can explain this
>> >> problem.
>> >> Thanks again.
>> >>
>> >> Sincerely,
>> >> Zheng
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At 2017-11-20 09:35:45, "Bruce Fischl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >
>> >> >how uniform is your distribution? I'm hardly an expert on this, but I
>> >> >wouldn't expect very large effects until you get into the older end of
>> >> >that range. Have you scatter plotted your data?
>> >> >Bruce
>> >> >On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you for your help.
>> >> >> I have 54 subjects, aged from 21 to 71 and only one group. I want
to compare the chang
e o
>> f
>> >> >> hippocampus volume with age. The results before and after doing the
correction for eTIV are
th
>> e
>> >> >> same. Where is wrong? Or if there is no error, how can I explain it in
discussion?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> At 2017-11-20 04:55:49, "Bruce Fischl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >yes, I see. Maybe the effect is smaller than you have the power to see, or
>> >> >> >there is no effect? You would need to give us more details for us to help.
>> >> >> >Are you correcting for eTIV? What measure are you comparing?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >cheers
>> >> >> >Bruce
>> >> >> > On Sun, 19 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Hi Bruce,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I am sorry for this situation.
>> >> >> >> In the first way, there was an statistical difference in left
hippocampus, but no d
iff
>> ere
>> >> nce
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> right hippocampus. In the second way, there was both no statistical
difference in left o
r
>> >> >> >> right hippocampus. I don't know what causes this result.
>> >> >> >> Can you understand me this time?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Thanks,
>> >> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> At 2017-11-18 22:58:56, "Bruce Fischl" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >Hi Zheng
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >no difference between what and what?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >cheers
>> >> >> >> >Bruce
>> >> >> >> >On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, 郑凤莲 wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> Hi professor,
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I am using Freesurfer for DTI data. When I run 'mri_segstats', I
>> >> >> >> >> got the result that there w
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> >> an obvious difference in left hippocampus, but no difference in
right hippocampus. Th
en,
>> I
>> >> run
>> >> >> >> >> segmentation of hippocampus subfields. The result showed there
is no difference in to
tal
>> le
>> >> ft
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> >> right hippocampus, and only in two right hippocampus subfields
has significant differ
enc
>> e.
>> >> Why
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> >> there inconsistent result in two means?
>> >> >> >> >> Thank you very much.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sincerely,
>> >> >> >> >> Zheng
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
