Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Measurement in Cortical Lesion ROI

2024-01-01 Thread Douglas N. Greve
You should load 
$chronic_CMI_volume_path/"$sub_base"_chronic-CMI_4-1.nii.gz into 
freeview with the surfaces, eg

cd subject/mri
freeview nu.mgz 
$chronic_CMI_volume_path/"$sub_base"_chronic-CMI_4-1.nii.gz -f 
../surfs/?h.white ../surfs/?h.pial

and see if the lesion maps between the white and pial surfaces
For vol2surf, use --projfrac-max
Also, make sure that the freeview threshold is not so high that it will 
exclude your segmentation



On 12/7/2023 5:22 AM, 李浩 wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer Experts,

 I am currently engaged in a project where I need to measure the 
cortical thickness of a segmented cortical lesion (ROI) in the volume 
space.
After running recon-all for my subjects, i employed 'mri_vol2surf' 
function to project my ROI from the native T1 space to indiviaul 
surface space. My command was as follows:


mri_vol2surf —mov 
 $chronic_CMI_volume_path/"$sub_base"_chronic-CMI_4-1.nii.gz --hemi rh 
--surf white --projfrac-avg -0.1 1 0.05 --interp nearest --o 
"$sub"_chronic-CMI_4-1_rh.mgh --regheader "$sub" --trgsubject “$sub”


However, I encountered an issue where I could not locate the ROI in 
the individual surface space, as the values in 
"$sub"_chronic-CMI_4-1_rh.mgh were all zero.


I suspect this might be due to a registration error or possibly the 
small size of my ROI (only 4 voxels). Do you have any suggestions on 
how to address this issue?


Additionally, I am wondering whether it's possible to register the 
cortical thickness map from the surface space back to the individual 
volume space, then calculate the mean cortical thickness of my ROI 
there. Alternatively, is it feasible to convert the coordinates of my 
ROI's center point to the MNI152 coordinate and then surface-based 
coordinates and directly create an ROI in the surface space?


Any feedback on these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks 
in advance.


Bests,
Hao Li


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .


[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Measurement in Cortical Lesion ROI

2023-12-07 Thread 李浩
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer Experts, 


 I am currently engaged in a project where I need to measure the cortical 
thickness of a segmented cortical lesion (ROI) in the volume space. 
 
After running recon-all for my subjects, i employed 'mri_vol2surf' function to 
project my ROI from the native T1 space to indiviaul surface space. My command 
was as follows:


mri_vol2surf —mov  $chronic_CMI_volume_path/"$sub_base"_chronic-CMI_4-1.nii.gz 
--hemi rh --surf white --projfrac-avg -0.1 1 0.05 --interp nearest --o 
"$sub"_chronic-CMI_4-1_rh.mgh --regheader "$sub" --trgsubject “$sub”


However, I encountered an issue where I could not locate the ROI in the 
individual surface space, as the values in "$sub"_chronic-CMI_4-1_rh.mgh were 
all zero.


I suspect this might be due to a registration error or possibly the small size 
of my ROI (only 4 voxels). Do you have any suggestions on how to address this 
issue?


Additionally, I am wondering whether it's possible to register the cortical 
thickness map from the surface space back to the individual volume space, then 
calculate the mean cortical thickness of my ROI there. Alternatively, is it 
feasible to convert the coordinates of my ROI's center point to the MNI152 
coordinate and then surface-based coordinates and directly create an ROI in the 
surface space?


Any feedback on these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.


Bests,
Hao Li

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Measurement in Cortical Lesion ROI

2023-12-07 Thread 李浩
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer Experts, 


 I am currently engaged in a project where I need to measure the cortical 
thickness of a segmented cortical lesion (ROI) in the volume space. 
 
After running recon-all for my subjects, i employed 'mri_vol2surf' function to 
project my ROI from the native T1 space to indiviaul surface space to project 
the ROI from the native T1 space to the individual surface space. My command 
was as follows:


$chronic_CMI_volume_path/"$sub_base"_chronic-CMI_4-1.nii.gz --hemi rh --surf 
white --projfrac-avg -0.1 1 0.05 --interp nearest --o 
"$sub"_chronic-CMI_4-1_rh.mgh --regheader "$sub" --trgsubject “$sub”


However, I encountered an issue where I could not locate the ROI in the 
individual surface space, as the values in "$sub"_chronic-CMI_4-1_rh.mgh were 
all zero.


I suspect this might be due to a registration error or possibly the small size 
of my ROI (only 4 voxels). Do you have any suggestions on how to address this 
issue?


Additionally, I am wondering whether it's possible to register the cortical 
thickness map from the surface space back to the individual volume space, then 
calculate the mean cortical thickness of my ROI there. Alternatively, is it 
feasible to convert the coordinates of my ROI's center point to the MNI152 
coordinate and then surface-based coordinates and directly create an ROI in the 
surface space?


Any feedback on these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.


Bests,
Hao Li




___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

2023-05-25 Thread Malav Shah
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Douglas, 
using .mgz worked well. 
As the command is supposed to generate a "curvature" file, I assumed it to be a 
surface format. 
Thanks a bunch. 

with regards, 
Malav 

From: "Douglas N. Greve"  
To: "freesurfer"  
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 3:46:35 PM 
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain 



External Email - Use Caution 

Can you try using lh.thickness.mgz instead of just lh.thickness? 

On 5/23/2023 1:12 PM, Malav Shah wrote: 




External Email - Use Caution 
Hi there, 
I believe the problem occured, because I generated pial surface by segmenting, 
and then tessellating that label volume, instead the way I see in log file of 
the subject 'bert' where standard autorecon achieves it using the 
'mris_place_surface' command 
(mris_place_surface --adgws-in ../surf/autodet.gw.stats.rh.dat --seg 
aseg.presurf.mgz --threads 8 --wm wm.mgz --invol brain.finalsurfs.mgz --rh --i 
../surf/rh.white --o ../surf/rh.pial.T1 --pial --nsmooth 0 --rip-label 
../label/rh.cortex+hipamyg.label --pin-medial-wall ../label/rh.cortex.label 
--aparc ../label/rh.aparc.annot --repulse-surf ../surf/rh.white --white-surf 
../surf/rh.white) 

Therefore, to go that way, I tried to "cheat" freesurfer with 
"mris_place_surface --adgws-in autodet.gw.stats.lh.dat --invol vol_seg.nii.gz 
--lh --i lh.wm.5smth --o lh.pial.nofix --pial --repulse-surf lh.wm.5smth" 
command using (following) made-up files 
- vol_seg.nii.gz- segmentation volume with voxel-intensities 1 (pial-matter), 2 
(gray matter) and 3 (white matter) 
- lh.wm.smth- white matter surface generated using white matter segmentation's 
tessellation, and then smootheed with n_smooth = 5 
- autodet.gw.stats.lh.pial is duplicated from the subject "bert" file with 
following values 

hemicode 1 
white_border_hi 3 
white_border_low 3 
white_outside_low 3 
white_inside_hi 3 
white_outside_hi 3 
pial_border_hi 1 
pial_border_low 1 
pial_outside_low 1 
pial_inside_hi 1 
pial_outside_hi 1 
use_mode 1 
variablesigma 1.00 
std_scale 1.00 
adWHITE_MATTER_MEAN 3 
MAX_WHITE 3.0 
MIN_BORDER_WHITE 2.50 
MAX_BORDER_WHITE 2.500 
MAX_GRAY 2.00 
MID_GRAY 2.00 
MIN_GRAY_AT_CSF_BORDER 1.500 
MAX_GRAY_AT_CSF_BORDER 1.500 
MIN_CSF 0.00 
adMAX_CSF 1.000 
white_mean 3.00 
white_mode 3.00 
white_std 0 
gray_mean 2.00 
gray_mode 2.00 
gray_std 0 
min_border_white 2.00 
max_border_white 3.0 
min_gray_at_white_border 1.5 
max_gray 2.00 
min_gray_at_csf_border 1.500 
max_gray_at_csf_border 2.44 
min_csf 1.00 
max_csf 1.00 
max_gray_scale 0.00 
max_scale_down 0.20 

However...I am getting the segmenetation fault error when it reads the surface 

cd 
/Volumes/experiment/share/Malav/Ele_ana_cortexMRI/pipelines/dumba_piece/fs_trl2 
setenv SUBJECTS_DIR /Applications/freesurfer/7.2.0/subjects/ 
mris_place_surface --adgws-in autodet.gw.stats.lh.dat --invol vol_seg.nii.gz 
--lh --i lh.wm.5smth --o lh.pial.nofix --pial --repulse-surf lh.wm.5smth 

Reading in input surface lh.wm.5smth 
ERROR: MRISedges(): too many faces: 181 938 n=7, m=3, k=2 
Segmentation fault: 11 

Any suggestions? 
Thanks in advance, 
malav 

From: "Malav Shah" [ mailto:malav.s...@bccn-berlin.de | 
 ] 
To: "Freesurfer support list" [ mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu | 
 ] 
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:35:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain 



External Email - Use Caution 
Thank you for a swift reply, Doug. 
Upon running the command "mris_diff --debug --min-dist lh.pial.5smth 
lh.wm.5smth 1 lh.thickness", the command line throws error that it can't find 
file. 
outcome: 

5 --min-dist 
Use Exact = 1 
Writing mindist to lh.thickness 
error: unknown file type for file (lh.thickness) 
mris_diff done 

I tried with an absolute file path which also didn't work. 
Strangely, when mentioned no file location, but giving in a directory 
"mris_diff --debug --min-dist lh.pial.5smth lh.wm.5smth 1 
/Users/user-name/Desktop/", 
2 files namely COR-info and COR-001 are created on Desktop, and COR-info can be 
loaded as 'overlay' for a surface. Unfortunately, these curvature values are 
not within range at all. 

For further details, using the command with --debug flag gives the following 
outcome (on command line) 

Use Exact = 0 
Writing mindist to /Users/monster/Desktop/ 
non-standard value for imnr1 (1, usually 256) in volume structure 
non-standard value for type (3, usually 0) in volume structure 
non-standard value for width (177753, usually 256) in volume structure 
non-standard value for height (1, usually 256) in volume structure 
mris_diff done 

Here I attach a couple of screenshots to elaborate the outcome. 
Kindly let me know how I can rectify the issue. 

Thanks and regards, 
malav 

From: "Douglas N. Greve" [ mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.ed

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

2023-05-24 Thread Douglas N. Greve
   External Email - Use Caution


Can you try using lh.thickness.mgz instead of just lh.thickness?

On 5/23/2023 1:12 PM, Malav Shah wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Hi there,
I believe the problem occured, because I generated pial surface by 
segmenting, and then tessellating that label volume, instead the way I 
see in log file of the subject 'bert' where standard autorecon 
achieves it using the 'mris_place_surface' command
(mris_place_surface --adgws-in ../surf/autodet.gw.stats.rh.dat --seg 
aseg.presurf.mgz --threads 8 --wm wm.mgz --invol brain.finalsurfs.mgz 
--rh --i ../surf/rh.white --o ../surf/rh.pial.T1 --pial --nsmooth 0 
--rip-label ../label/rh.cortex+hipamyg.label --pin-medial-wall 
../label/rh.cortex.label --aparc ../label/rh.aparc.annot 
--repulse-surf ../surf/rh.white --white-surf ../surf/rh.white)


Therefore, to go that way, I tried to "cheat" freesurfer with
"mris_place_surface --adgws-in autodet.gw.stats.lh.dat --invol 
vol_seg.nii.gz --lh --i lh.wm.5smth --o lh.pial.nofix --pial 
--repulse-surf lh.wm.5smth"

command using (following) made-up files
- vol_seg.nii.gz- segmentation volume with voxel-intensities 1 
(pial-matter), 2 (gray matter) and 3 (white matter)
- lh.wm.smth- white matter surface generated using white matter 
segmentation's tessellation, and then smootheed with n_smooth = 5
- autodet.gw.stats.lh.pial is duplicated from the subject "bert" file 
with following values


hemicode   1
white_border_hi    3
white_border_low   3
white_outside_low  3
white_inside_hi    3
white_outside_hi   3
pial_border_hi    1
pial_border_low   1
pial_outside_low  1
pial_inside_hi    1
pial_outside_hi   1
use_mode 1
variablesigma 1.00
std_scale 1.00
adWHITE_MATTER_MEAN 3
MAX_WHITE 3.0
MIN_BORDER_WHITE 2.50
MAX_BORDER_WHITE 2.500
MAX_GRAY 2.00
MID_GRAY 2.00
MIN_GRAY_AT_CSF_BORDER 1.500
MAX_GRAY_AT_CSF_BORDER 1.500
MIN_CSF 0.00
adMAX_CSF 1.000
white_mean 3.00
white_mode 3.00
white_std 0
gray_mean 2.00
gray_mode 2.00
gray_std 0
min_border_white 2.00
max_border_white 3.0
min_gray_at_white_border 1.5
max_gray 2.00
min_gray_at_csf_border 1.500
max_gray_at_csf_border 2.44
min_csf 1.00
max_csf 1.00
max_gray_scale 0.00
max_scale_down 0.20

However...I am getting the segmenetation fault error when it reads the 
surface


cd 
/Volumes/experiment/share/Malav/Ele_ana_cortexMRI/pipelines/dumba_piece/fs_trl2

setenv SUBJECTS_DIR /Applications/freesurfer/7.2.0/subjects/
mris_place_surface --adgws-in autodet.gw.stats.lh.dat --invol 
vol_seg.nii.gz --lh --i lh.wm.5smth --o lh.pial.nofix --pial 
--repulse-surf lh.wm.5smth


Reading in input surface lh.wm.5smth
ERROR: MRISedges(): too many faces: 181 938 n=7, m=3, k=2
Segmentation fault: 11

Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance,
malav

*From: *"Malav Shah" 
*To: *"Freesurfer support list" 
*Sent: *Monday, May 22, 2023 5:35:56 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

External Email - Use Caution

Thank you for a swift reply, Doug.
Upon running the command "mris_diff --debug --min-dist lh.pial.5smth 
lh.wm.5smth 1 lh.thickness", the command line throws error that it 
can't find file.

outcome:

5 --min-dist
Use Exact = 1
Writing mindist to lh.thickness
error: unknown file type for file (lh.thickness)
mris_diff done

I tried with an absolute file path which also didn't work.
Strangely, when mentioned no file location, but giving in a directory 
"mris_diff --debug --min-dist lh.pial.5smth lh.wm.5smth 1 
/Users/user-name/Desktop/",
2 files namely COR-info and COR-001  are created on Desktop, and 
COR-info can be loaded as 'overlay' for a surface. Unfortunately, 
these curvature values are not within range at all.


For further details, using the command with --debug flag gives the 
following outcome (on command line)


Use Exact = 0
Writing mindist to /Users/monster/Desktop/
non-standard value for imnr1 (1, usually 256) in volume structure
non-standard value for type (3, usually 0) in volume structure
non-standard value for width (177753, usually 256) in volume structure
non-standard value for height (1, usually 256) in volume structure
mris_diff done

Here I attach a couple of screenshots to elaborate the outcome.
Kindly let me know how I can rectify the issue.

Thanks and regards,
malav

*From: *"Douglas N. Greve" 
*To: *"freesurfer" 
*Sent: *Monday, May 22, 2023 3:32:28 PM
*Subject: *Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

External Email - Use Caution

Hi Malav, try
mris_diff --min-dist lh.wm.smth5 lh.pial.smth5 1 lh.thickness
The output will be on the pial surface. Reverse the surface order to 
get it on the white surface

doug


On 5/22/2023 5:48 AM, Malav

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

2023-05-23 Thread Malav Shah
External Email - Use Caution

Hi there, 
I believe the problem occured, because I generated pial surface by segmenting, 
and then tessellating that label volume, instead the way I see in log file of 
the subject 'bert' where standard autorecon achieves it using the 
'mris_place_surface' command 
(mris_place_surface --adgws-in ../surf/autodet.gw.stats.rh.dat --seg 
aseg.presurf.mgz --threads 8 --wm wm.mgz --invol brain.finalsurfs.mgz --rh --i 
../surf/rh.white --o ../surf/rh.pial.T1 --pial --nsmooth 0 --rip-label 
../label/rh.cortex+hipamyg.label --pin-medial-wall ../label/rh.cortex.label 
--aparc ../label/rh.aparc.annot --repulse-surf ../surf/rh.white --white-surf 
../surf/rh.white) 

Therefore, to go that way, I tried to "cheat" freesurfer with 
"mris_place_surface --adgws-in autodet.gw.stats.lh.dat --invol vol_seg.nii.gz 
--lh --i lh.wm.5smth --o lh.pial.nofix --pial --repulse-surf lh.wm.5smth" 
command using (following) made-up files 
- vol_seg.nii.gz- segmentation volume with voxel-intensities 1 (pial-matter), 2 
(gray matter) and 3 (white matter) 
- lh.wm.smth- white matter surface generated using white matter segmentation's 
tessellation, and then smootheed with n_smooth = 5 
- autodet.gw.stats.lh.pial is duplicated from the subject "bert" file with 
following values 

hemicode 1 
white_border_hi 3 
white_border_low 3 
white_outside_low 3 
white_inside_hi 3 
white_outside_hi 3 
pial_border_hi 1 
pial_border_low 1 
pial_outside_low 1 
pial_inside_hi 1 
pial_outside_hi 1 
use_mode 1 
variablesigma 1.00 
std_scale 1.00 
adWHITE_MATTER_MEAN 3 
MAX_WHITE 3.0 
MIN_BORDER_WHITE 2.50 
MAX_BORDER_WHITE 2.500 
MAX_GRAY 2.00 
MID_GRAY 2.00 
MIN_GRAY_AT_CSF_BORDER 1.500 
MAX_GRAY_AT_CSF_BORDER 1.500 
MIN_CSF 0.00 
adMAX_CSF 1.000 
white_mean 3.00 
white_mode 3.00 
white_std 0 
gray_mean 2.00 
gray_mode 2.00 
gray_std 0 
min_border_white 2.00 
max_border_white 3.0 
min_gray_at_white_border 1.5 
max_gray 2.00 
min_gray_at_csf_border 1.500 
max_gray_at_csf_border 2.44 
min_csf 1.00 
max_csf 1.00 
max_gray_scale 0.00 
max_scale_down 0.20 

However...I am getting the segmenetation fault error when it reads the surface 

cd 
/Volumes/experiment/share/Malav/Ele_ana_cortexMRI/pipelines/dumba_piece/fs_trl2 
setenv SUBJECTS_DIR /Applications/freesurfer/7.2.0/subjects/ 
mris_place_surface --adgws-in autodet.gw.stats.lh.dat --invol vol_seg.nii.gz 
--lh --i lh.wm.5smth --o lh.pial.nofix --pial --repulse-surf lh.wm.5smth 

Reading in input surface lh.wm.5smth 
ERROR: MRISedges(): too many faces: 181 938 n=7, m=3, k=2 
Segmentation fault: 11 

Any suggestions? 
Thanks in advance, 
malav 

From: "Malav Shah"  
To: "Freesurfer support list"  
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 5:35:56 PM 
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain 



External Email - Use Caution 


Thank you for a swift reply, Doug. 
Upon running the command "mris_diff --debug --min-dist lh.pial.5smth 
lh.wm.5smth 1 lh.thickness", the command line throws error that it can't find 
file. 
outcome: 

5 --min-dist 
Use Exact = 1 
Writing mindist to lh.thickness 
error: unknown file type for file (lh.thickness) 
mris_diff done 

I tried with an absolute file path which also didn't work. 
Strangely, when mentioned no file location, but giving in a directory 
"mris_diff --debug --min-dist lh.pial.5smth lh.wm.5smth 1 
/Users/user-name/Desktop/", 
2 files namely COR-info and COR-001 are created on Desktop, and COR-info can be 
loaded as 'overlay' for a surface. Unfortunately, these curvature values are 
not within range at all. 

For further details, using the command with --debug flag gives the following 
outcome (on command line) 

Use Exact = 0 
Writing mindist to /Users/monster/Desktop/ 
non-standard value for imnr1 (1, usually 256) in volume structure 
non-standard value for type (3, usually 0) in volume structure 
non-standard value for width (177753, usually 256) in volume structure 
non-standard value for height (1, usually 256) in volume structure 
mris_diff done 

Here I attach a couple of screenshots to elaborate the outcome. 
Kindly let me know how I can rectify the issue. 

Thanks and regards, 
malav 

From: "Douglas N. Greve"  
To: "freesurfer"  
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 3:32:28 PM 
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain 



External Email - Use Caution 

Hi Malav, try 
mris_diff --min-dist lh.wm.smth5 lh.pial.smth5 1 lh.thickness 
The output will be on the pial surface. Reverse the surface order to get it on 
the white surface 
doug 


On 5/22/2023 5:48 AM, Malav Shah wrote: 




External Email - Use Caution 
Dear freeSurfer team, 
I am trying to extract cortical thickness in a postmortem elephant (structural) 
MRI scan. 

I initiated the process with the segmentation of white (wm) and pial matter, 
using MATLAB image proc

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

2023-05-22 Thread Douglas N. Greve
   External Email - Use Caution


Hi Malav, try
mris_diff --min-dist lh.wm.smth5 lh.pial.smth5 1 lh.thickness
The output will be on the pial surface. Reverse the surface order to get 
it on the white surface

doug


On 5/22/2023 5:48 AM, Malav Shah wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Dear freeSurfer team,
I am trying to extract cortical thickness in a postmortem elephant 
(structural) MRI scan.


I initiated the process with the segmentation of white (wm) and pial 
matter, using MATLAB image processing tools.
Having satisfied white and pial matter labels, I "tesselated" these 
volumes to generate pial and wm surfaces.

Then, with 'mris_smooth' command, I smoothed these surfaces.
When attempted to estimate cortical thickness between these surfaces 
(lh.pial.smth5 and lh.wm.smth5), I get the following error.


command: mris_place_surface --thickness lh.pial.smth5 lh.wm.smth5 20 5 
lh.thickness

error: No such file or directory
error:
ERROR:
MRISreadVertexPositions(/Volumes/experiment/share/Malav/Ele_ana_cortexMRI/pipelines/dumba_piece/lh.wm.smth5): 
surfaces differ. Main: 177753 verts 365096 faces, lh.wm.smth5: 145095 
verts 298436 faces

Surfaces may be out-of-date

I understand there is a mismatch in the number of nodes of these 
surfaces. How can I rectify this issue to get to the thickness?

Thanks and regards,
malav

Malav Shah
PhD candidate, Michael Brecht Lab,
Humboldt University zu Berlin.
(+49) 163-216-9391

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pjZSejN3qAoutdAz4ZgudZ-Fu9A0xaOD1oZyw-rIly2jzHFtOG9oN156MWYnTs-bef79cUtJym0G0xYLHZ0M5gshV7xrOIgi_03Md3YmlYwKACLVq5CDj9rMQZ4MCo1NTP3lR4V1-LEagN0k72Who-h0_u_QMnicijIghq9M_flwMMM0hxxgOZKtYFu5kETqpLaw_ahEzYBoGkKgeIcN4hFI8ZG_K3db_ptYxfRC-ciLyGbnI7yInxbcSvJ_Xs6h/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness of elephant brain

2023-05-22 Thread Malav Shah
External Email - Use Caution

Dear freeSurfer team, 
I am trying to extract cortical thickness in a postmortem elephant (structural) 
MRI scan. 

I initiated the process with the segmentation of white (wm) and pial matter, 
using MATLAB image processing tools. 
Having satisfied white and pial matter labels, I "tesselated" these volumes to 
generate pial and wm surfaces. 
Then, with 'mris_smooth' command, I smoothed these surfaces. 
When attempted to estimate cortical thickness between these surfaces 
(lh.pial.smth5 and lh.wm.smth5), I get the following error. 

command: mris_place_surface --thickness lh.pial.smth5 lh.wm.smth5 20 5 
lh.thickness 
error: No such file or directory 
error: 
ERROR: 
MRISreadVertexPositions(/Volumes/experiment/share/Malav/Ele_ana_cortexMRI/pipelines/dumba_piece/lh.wm.smth5):
 surfaces differ. Main: 177753 verts 365096 faces, lh.wm.smth5: 145095 verts 
298436 faces 
Surfaces may be out-of-date 

I understand there is a mismatch in the number of nodes of these surfaces. How 
can I rectify this issue to get to the thickness? 
Thanks and regards, 
malav 

Malav Shah 
PhD candidate, Michael Brecht Lab, 
Humboldt University zu Berlin. 
(+49) 163-216-9391 
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness and z-scores correlation

2023-03-27 Thread Douglas N. Greve
The easiest thing is probably just to use matlab to load in the data 
(MRIread.m) and pull out the vertices you need. Alternatively, you can 
convert an mgh/mgz file to ascii  with mri_convert --ascii or 
--ascii+crsf and then do what you want with it.


On 3/21/2023 12:38 PM, Maria Czarnecka wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Dear Sisters and Brothers in neuroscience

I am a huge fan but a very new user of the freesurfer, please treat me 
as such when answering this email.


I have successfully performed anatomical and functional data analysis 
using fmriprep, freesurfer and fsfast. I have all the files needed, 
everything looks perfect. As a next step of my analysis I would like 
to perform a correlation of Cortical thickness and the functional 
activation in one of my contrasts (I would like to correlate the CT 
with the z-scores). I would like to do that separately for each 
subject and in ROIs (ideally, self-defined Rois, but if there is an 
easy way to do it in anatomical ones I will be very happy as well). 
What I need is for the program to take the z-score from each vertex in 
an ROI and the value of cortical thickness for each vertex and do the 
correlation on those values. I can also do the statistics in another 
tool (R), so simply extracting those values for vertices in an ROIs 
would be great.


Do you have any suggestions how to do that?

Best,

Maria Czarnecka


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] cortical thickness and z-scores correlation

2023-03-21 Thread Maria Czarnecka
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Sisters and Brothers in neuroscience

I am a huge fan but a very new user of the freesurfer, please treat me as
such when answering this email.

I have successfully performed anatomical and functional data analysis using
fmriprep, freesurfer and fsfast. I have all the files needed, everything
looks perfect. As a next step of my analysis I would like to perform a
correlation of Cortical thickness and the functional activation in one of
my contrasts (I would like to correlate the CT with the z-scores). I would
like to do that separately for each subject and in ROIs (ideally,
self-defined Rois, but if there is an easy way to do it in anatomical ones
I will be very happy as well). What I need is for the program to take the
z-score from each vertex in an ROI and the value of cortical thickness for
each vertex and do the correlation on those values. I can also do the
statistics in another tool (R), so simply extracting those values for
vertices in an ROIs would be great.

Do you have any suggestions how to do that?

Best,

Maria Czarnecka
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness in frontal lobe

2022-11-09 Thread Douglas N. Greve

you should weight by the number of vertices in each roi

On 11/9/2022 8:01 AM, James Brown wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer experts,
We are new to Freesurfer. We appreciate your help & apologize if the 
question is simple.
We need cortical thickness in lobes instead of parcellates. Is it 
correct to take the average of the parcelates from the 
aparc+aseg.stats file under subjid/stats folder. For example,
cortical thickness of frontal lobe = sum of frontal parcellates  
divided by number of parcallates .
Do we need to do any correction such as weighing the surface area 
measurements ?


Thank you
James

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] cortical thickness in frontal lobe

2022-11-09 Thread James Brown
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer experts,
We are new to Freesurfer. We appreciate your help & apologize if the
question is simple.
We need cortical thickness in lobes instead of parcellates. Is it correct
to take the average of the parcelates from the aparc+aseg.stats file under
subjid/stats folder. For example,
cortical thickness of frontal lobe = sum of frontal parcellates  divided by
number of parcallates .
Do we need to do any correction such as weighing the surface area
measurements ?

Thank you
James
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] Converting Freesurfer Cortical Thickness Output into 32K space

2022-08-10 Thread Ariana Fei
External Email - Use Caution

Hi,

Just wondering if anyone has any experience with converting freesurfer
cortical thickness output into 32K space (or native space/164k space/96k
space) and can share the script you use to do it?

Thanks so much!
Ariana Fei
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
<https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness measures using different ways of processing

2022-07-28 Thread Douglas N. Greve

those look like hcp commands so you should contact them

On 7/28/2022 2:00 PM, Ariana Fei wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

I'm attaching a list of command I used to convert freesurfer cortical 
thickness output to native space:


$Caret5_Command -file-convert -fsc2c 
"$FreeSurferFolder"/surf/"$hemisphere"h.thickness 
"$FreeSurferFolder"/surf/"$hemisphere"h.white 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret5_Command -spec-file-add 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".native.c5.spec 
surface_shape_file 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret5_Command -metric-set-column-name 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii 
1 "$Subject"_"$Hemisphere"_Thickness
$Caret5_Command -file-convert -format-convert XML_BASE64 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret7_Command -set-structure 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii 
$Structure
$Caret7_Command -add-to-spec-file 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject".native.wb.spec 
$Structure 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret7_Command -metric-palette 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii 
MODE_AUTO_SCALE_PERCENTAGE -pos-percent 2 98 -palette-name Gray_Interp 
-disp-pos true -disp-neg true -disp-zero true
#cp 
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii 
"$T1wFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii 
#commented out GW
$Caret7_Command -add-to-spec-file 
"$T1wFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject".native.wb.spec $Structure 
"$T1wFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii


This already gives negative cortical thickness values in native space.

Ariana



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
<https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness measures using different ways of processing

2022-07-28 Thread Ariana Fei
External Email - Use Caution

I'm attaching a list of command I used to convert freesurfer cortical
thickness output to native space:

$Caret5_Command -file-convert -fsc2c
"$FreeSurferFolder"/surf/"$hemisphere"h.thickness
"$FreeSurferFolder"/surf/"$hemisphere"h.white
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret5_Command -spec-file-add
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".native.c5.spec
surface_shape_file
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret5_Command -metric-set-column-name
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
1 "$Subject"_"$Hemisphere"_Thickness
$Caret5_Command -file-convert -format-convert XML_BASE64
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret7_Command -set-structure
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Structure
$Caret7_Command -add-to-spec-file
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject".native.wb.spec $Structure
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
$Caret7_Command -metric-palette
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
MODE_AUTO_SCALE_PERCENTAGE -pos-percent 2 98 -palette-name Gray_Interp
-disp-pos true -disp-neg true -disp-zero true
#cp
"$AtlasSpaceFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
"$T1wFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii
#commented out GW
$Caret7_Command -add-to-spec-file
"$T1wFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject".native.wb.spec $Structure
"$T1wFolder"/"$NativeFolder"/"$Subject"."$Hemisphere".thickness.native.shape.gii

This already gives negative cortical thickness values in native space.

Ariana
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
<https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness measures using different ways of processing

2022-07-28 Thread Douglas N. Greve

how are you converting them?

On 7/27/2022 11:20 AM, Ariana Fei wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Hi,

We are recently trying to get cortical thickness from freesurfer and 
converting them to 32k. A problem we notice is that after converting 
to 32k, all the cortical thickness values become negative. However, 
when we load freesurfer thickness files in freeview, everything 
appears normal. We wonder if merely inverting what we currently have 
in 32k would be a good idea. Alternatively, we also calculated the 
Euclidean distance of pial and white after they have been converted 
into 32k space, which should be cortical thickness. However, when 
comparing the inverted values and the "pial-white"values, we find that 
there are some differences. In this case, has anyone ever had similar 
issues and have suggestions on which one to trust?


Thanks!

Ariana


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness measures using different ways of processing

2022-07-27 Thread Ariana Fei
External Email - Use Caution

Hi,

We are recently trying to get cortical thickness from freesurfer and
converting them to 32k. A problem we notice is that after converting to
32k, all the cortical thickness values become negative. However, when we
load freesurfer thickness files in freeview, everything appears normal. We
wonder if merely inverting what we currently have in 32k would be a good
idea. Alternatively, we also calculated the Euclidean distance of pial and
white after they have been converted into 32k space, which should be
cortical thickness. However, when comparing the inverted values and the
"pial-white"values, we find that there are some differences. In this case,
has anyone ever had similar issues and have suggestions on which one to
trust?

Thanks!

Ariana
___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline 
 .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness difference as vertex-label overlay

2021-09-21 Thread Graterol Pérez , José Alberto
External Email - Use Caution

that seems to work. Thank you!


From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 on behalf of Douglas N. Greve 

Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2021 11:23:33 PM
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness difference as vertex-label overlay

Try
mri_mask yourcontrast/gamma.mgh sig.masked.mgh yourcontrast/gamma.masked.mgh
gamma is the contrast value (eg, patients minus controls). Is that what you 
wnat?

On 9/10/2021 6:20 AM, Graterol Pérez, José Alberto wrote:

External Email - Use Caution

Hello,


I've done a group comparison between patients and controls, and obtained some 
significant cortical thickness (CT) clusters. Is there a way to obtain an 
overlay similar to the sig.masked, but for the vertex-wise CT values instead of 
the p values?


Best

José



Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf; Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts; 
Gerichtsstand: Hamburg | MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 
"secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be 
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1hAzh1jBu63H6tVGgotsuavQ6dsaNlwpucUWJaC6PJmxRj9XTKj82C0c6kVpY7No9DtPZFbS5n_iGOItG_ePjJFxELxCJpsMNPIHWycX6YqT0gDanbd8DLUb1X6YfoMVgiZYPwCv7TghXJdkxTg8NS-hnF3uW4MXfkmU0ynpDULO1WWWhua71aukdjHxJXKuhtGmwxdnbtG7_o40QX3K2fXeI39wnRPqMLRDYzQDOrJ3CrZ0_QCWG-6Qr_eJencEWagoT7lj2KNi30MsR2zvi5g/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uke.de<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1e7AftRvFI-NEMfuT18S0RBQu0b88KQG6OyJdlKgcz5IMkhd75fpD7-o-WzjqBZzIv-7OEK5u0xsv4O-Mw1pwO_NB9017Grf5V1CPlyv_hMP3GSs9XgikNYhIoJV-a9DvEXBB1B9Yvr8P9GIpHq-d15RJgqxsgVpzx92WEBPyW-cnCKGLPLFmjeKYvLZbHmsJb-k_EBHmRmH90VxNfN7b1ZE1Ui0MAN4AESRVX1iAzlgnDicuwallRoUov_1uDu3CxOxcjduQCDMV4drLFgydNQ/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uke.de%2F>
Vorstandsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Göke (Vorsitzender), Joachim Prölß, 
Prof. Dr. Blanche Schwappach-Pignataro, Marya Verdel



SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE PRINTING



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
https://secure-web.cisco.com/19mGTQRUU9Ej5uctZW1_qg-gBpnqzdazL7mpH0vD7xSjWdaV36pgsfo7AAX46lmk8jLtdoVZbN3PgyH0-ZoXy9GzN8n4-1vsix3DpVMO5GpsJEIhaTw4fo01ux9xhfz7HhWDfLruPfxVmxPk636blvRZKqo0GwAaif-Mq4-ze6JuR3tMaTJ_fZW01mAXl55sq7qcJZbRinuEmgvrtKKxAiCk-UMyRwQXQXcvmnf36_A4wF85YqggK5mHq2UsXvgTY6pt6XrLVKXhqsBpVLK3O3w/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer

--

_

Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf; Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts; 
Gerichtsstand: Hamburg | 
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1hAzh1jBu63H6tVGgotsuavQ6dsaNlwpucUWJaC6PJmxRj9XTKj82C0c6kVpY7No9DtPZFbS5n_iGOItG_ePjJFxELxCJpsMNPIHWycX6YqT0gDanbd8DLUb1X6YfoMVgiZYPwCv7TghXJdkxTg8NS-hnF3uW4MXfkmU0ynpDULO1WWWhua71aukdjHxJXKuhtGmwxdnbtG7_o40QX3K2fXeI39wnRPqMLRDYzQDOrJ3CrZ0_QCWG-6Qr_eJencEWagoT7lj2KNi30MsR2zvi5g/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uke.de
Vorstandsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Göke (Vorsitzender), Joachim Prölß, 
Prof. Dr. Blanche Schwappach-Pignataro, Marya Verdel
_

SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE PRINTING
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness difference as vertex-label overlay

2021-09-12 Thread Douglas N. Greve

Try
mri_mask yourcontrast/gamma.mgh sig.masked.mgh yourcontrast/gamma.masked.mgh
gamma is the contrast value (eg, patients minus controls). Is that what 
you wnat?


On 9/10/2021 6:20 AM, Graterol Pérez, José Alberto wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Hello,


I've done a group comparison between patients and controls, and 
obtained some significant cortical thickness (CT) clusters. Is there a 
way to obtain an overlay similar to the sig.masked, but for the 
vertex-wise CT values instead of the p values?



Best

José




Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf; Körperschaft des öffentlichen 
Rechts; Gerichtsstand: Hamburg | *MailScanner has detected a possible 
fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be* www.uke.de 

Vorstandsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Göke (Vorsitzender), Joachim 
Prölß, Prof. Dr. Blanche Schwappach-Pignataro, Marya Verdel




SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE PRINTING


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
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 Mass General Brigham 
Compliance HelpLine at http://www.massgeneralbrigham.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.
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to 
continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of 
this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after 
receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to 
continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 


[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness difference as vertex-label overlay

2021-09-10 Thread Graterol Pérez , José Alberto
External Email - Use Caution

Hello,


I've done a group comparison between patients and controls, and obtained some 
significant cortical thickness (CT) clusters. Is there a way to obtain an 
overlay similar to the sig.masked, but for the vertex-wise CT values instead of 
the p values?


Best

José
--

_

Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf; Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts; 
Gerichtsstand: Hamburg | 
http://secure-web.cisco.com/1-wFjFF0QdKwKy2LqouXvxJzgHC1mBAGCrGfRZL2KCrD7zAFUdiAEOKLcbYlmVtMpD-NeN6gYjKkE_E2YUWJf22oSCmlX0MpCqFKKh9auUczlEOHzjSKvJ_zs_w_4r6rixpKBBoB8nPLSpa2M0cO4eGszLYL5LwEDy36aYeBXJCC6S1ThGoCbfc23Z7Fju6zloeY58708_uNSoZNQwZdDp_NwZmyVv8QQugOcEyuQ-zb3Od0VvFh3iBbzHCDOe32hITQq0qSmxW6C2cRgBlFAcw/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uke.de
Vorstandsmitglieder: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Göke (Vorsitzender), Joachim Prölß, 
Prof. Dr. Blanche Schwappach-Pignataro, Marya Verdel
_

SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE PRINTING
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] FreeSurfer cortical thickness

2021-06-14 Thread Paul Wighton
External Email - Use Caution

Hi Rosie,

For cortical thickness, check out *.aparc.*.stats files (e.g,
lh.aparc.stats, lh.aparc.a2009s.stats, lh.aparc.DKTatlas.stats).  There is
more info in the ROI analysis tutorial:

- 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/15BXH9iwkvAUJ2mnf7udx7SdsKrQQYNrTO61RpUPKdnieLJKqERB5mvRrnm7cOrATPnxd7IXM7nk8vY9zR-iS6vP2NwrHAkj7CSI3WBS1QS8rD3aER9JlHdirUm0C1skuCSb0Zj0vRmn6q4JW16yrNaowgeMQHGwC4J8EJdYnjwoSQTYC1me7pMfclBdrvOg-R9G7kmCKJ8Cx_0_UVg1Iqkr3h-Jv8OFNf-mRkmH7B51QaKzzF1q7YVasJZWZlvqAhUC_vZ0jqLMDssuF6axfrg/https%3A%2F%2Fsurfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Ffswiki%2FFsTutorial%2FAnatomicalROIV6.0
- 
http://secure-web.cisco.com/11konKzcN75CItWAIgFCWfEXU5fG9rYHy9qXZfPC5tgF0-KkV2XyDSRU4qVsLyN0X3KRAsHb4lMoQgq6UI_K1y5Zw7S3eqYcymXf8V_aRo5HM8OvVYCimLRf7aXEcw0BXt-v8jOlTaA5S6pnpIDyFs_VGUaDGYzJGO7ER8rVfwn8jr4_gJ41gnCcq_76tuD7RZ_yJ5fPPXYVAZmvCPcGI235KVgfwcrzL36vEVp9ReVWXDAHexGeadO9vvrsI7unGPjAO2yVXV8ZEORwG8C0iug/http%3A%2F%2Fsurfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fpub%2Fdocs%2Ffs.roi.EB_wiki.pptx
- 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xzPihpYli8qjtCXIgus5VJlEXiRWD1ZGJd9d35zuGRR7QVtG6x8F5OVZl0oPJI3FOCUVrwL3sMJlzJrcPvv5o8_ety52kBawlD8VtFKdoqAoIBUBlzu64f9X8JMHTQEDevFFFnOJpZsSd4J-JuGYcRt5XW4LroD4MqH2c6def-eqHso8Yqk70XN6EoyK4hzR1q9od9MHpxS1YB9l6U7y79vezNlDK-oSzAK6kJYSSxWPvv74KgEf8w9gAirwIT6YYu9P74pMeGtL15-aryRatw/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dn5QkCwZZPko%26t%3D294s

-Paul


On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:09 AM Rosalia Dacosta Aguayo 
wrote:

> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Dear Freesurfer's experts,
>
> I run FreeSurfer and I got the following stats:
>
> rosalia@rosalia-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN
> /media/rosalia/Nuevo_vol/ARTICO/derivatives/freesurfer/sub-003/stats $ ls
> aseg.stats   lh.BA_exvivo.thresh.stats  rh.aparc.stats
> lh.aparc.a2009s.statslh.curv.stats  rh.BA_exvivo.stats
> lh.aparc.DKTatlas.stats  lh.w-g.pct.stats
> rh.BA_exvivo.thresh.stats
> lh.aparc.pial.stats  rh.aparc.a2009s.stats  rh.curv.stats
> lh.aparc.stats   rh.aparc.DKTatlas.statsrh.w-g.pct.stats
> lh.BA_exvivo.stats   rh.aparc.pial.statswmparc.stats
> rosalia@rosalia-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN
> /media/rosalia/Nuevo_vol/ARTICO/derivatives/freesurfer/sub-003/stats $
>
> A part from the aseg.stats file, which one should I consider if I am
> interested in cortical thickness. Should I run any other step for this?
>
> Best,
> Rosie
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1lJa7E1Vxigi2Ny7f2bPJziIvxmD2nWTYdVG5LfSz7o6KE9q86ctGfTgAZIXCfNiVKswwTxDNzqBDNU010yEy5jKPwx98p0Xp2Qdi5k-sMlNB9lXR5E4-oAszTi8tjrkIaUCUJ4k4KkYe-g0iFIozxRW-oVb9neAO7Lk_wa89H3Rv_HSDcOdTHuYeHCOTlo6-nn7waFfF-Inb7qqenPiGcaaoGMvmV3awd0aPSaBE1E_Qt2OZhNak4Kse53VQDjmTeRNwzMaOqJ8hF9YtQG7iUg/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] FreeSurfer cortical thickness

2021-06-14 Thread Rosalia Dacosta Aguayo
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer's experts,

I run FreeSurfer and I got the following stats:

rosalia@rosalia-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN
/media/rosalia/Nuevo_vol/ARTICO/derivatives/freesurfer/sub-003/stats $ ls
aseg.stats   lh.BA_exvivo.thresh.stats  rh.aparc.stats
lh.aparc.a2009s.statslh.curv.stats  rh.BA_exvivo.stats
lh.aparc.DKTatlas.stats  lh.w-g.pct.stats
rh.BA_exvivo.thresh.stats
lh.aparc.pial.stats  rh.aparc.a2009s.stats  rh.curv.stats
lh.aparc.stats   rh.aparc.DKTatlas.statsrh.w-g.pct.stats
lh.BA_exvivo.stats   rh.aparc.pial.statswmparc.stats
rosalia@rosalia-Lenovo-Y520-15IKBN
/media/rosalia/Nuevo_vol/ARTICO/derivatives/freesurfer/sub-003/stats $

A part from the aseg.stats file, which one should I consider if I am
interested in cortical thickness. Should I run any other step for this?

Best,
Rosie
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Measures for MTL

2021-06-03 Thread Kidwai, Ambereen
External Email - Use Caution

Hello,

I have been manually tracing the entorhinal cortex, dividing it into the 
antero-lateral entorhinal and posterior-medial entorhinal cortex. I am looking 
for a way to get cortical thickness measures for this region. I have a few 
questions relating to this:


  1.  Is it possible to import my manually traced labels (traced in ITK-snap) 
into freesurfer and then get the thickness measures for these labels?
  2.  Is it possible to edit the aparc or aseg in order to divide the 
entorhinal cortex into the two regions that I am delineating?
  3.  If neither of the above options are possible, is there any other way to 
get cortical thickness measures for manual segmentation of this region?

I appreciate any help or insight you can give me.

Best regards,

Amber Kidwai
Research Assistant
Functional Neuroimaging of Memory Laboratory
Center for Vital Longevity | University of Texas at Dallas
1600 Viceroy Drive Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75235
Cell: (214) 675 3612
[Description: Description: CVL_logo]




___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness on version 6 vs 7

2021-03-18 Thread Douglas N. Greve
I have not seen anything of that magnitude. I do see a systematic drop 
in the thickness with v7 relative to v6, but it is on the order of 1 or 
2%. It might be something specific to the pulse sequence that you are 
using. Try looking at the surfaces of the subject that has the largest 
discrepancy. You can use fvcompare, eg,


fvcompare --s subjectname --sd1 /path/to/v6/subjectsdir --sd2 
/path/to/v7/subjectsdir


This will bring up surfaces and segs from both analysis in one freeview 
command so that you can inspect them.


On 3/12/2021 11:29 AM, Xiaojiang Yang wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer developers,

I have a cohort of subjects that are already run under FS 6. I 
recently upgraded Freesurfer from 6.0 to 7.1.1, and now I also have 
run these subjects under FS 7.


When comparing the cortical thickness results obtained from FS6 and 
FS7, I found that FS 7 results are much smaller than the FS6 ones. On 
average, about 13%-21% decrease in the subject's average cortical 
thickness. Specifically, on a cohort of images from GE scanners, the 
average cortical thickness from FS6 is 2.5mm, but from FS7 is less 
than 2.0mm.


According to some published papers, I think 2.5mm as the average 
cortical thickness is more accurate than 2.0mm.


Have you encountered this issue or question before? Do you think I 
should keep using FS6? Please give me your advice. Thank you!


John.


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness on version 6 vs 7

2021-03-12 Thread Xiaojiang Yang
External Email - Use Caution

Thank you Matt for letting me know that.

John


For what it’s worth, we had problems with FreeSurfer 7.X with surface placement
accuracy on HCP-Style data (i.e. 0.8-0.7mm isotropic T1w and T2w) and have
continued to recommend using FreeSurfer 6 for the HCP Pipelines for now.  We
usually quote 2.6mm average cortical thickness for young adults, but it does
depend on age.

Matt.

From:  on behalf of Xiaojiang Yang

Reply-To: Freesurfer support list 
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM
To: Freesurfer support list 
Subject: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness on version 6 vs 7



External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer developers,

I have a cohort of subjects that are already run under FS 6. I recently
upgraded Freesurfer from 6.0 to 7.1.1, and now I also have run these subjects
under FS 7.

When comparing the cortical thickness results obtained from FS6 and FS7, I
found that FS 7 results are much smaller than the FS6 ones. On average, about
13%-21% decrease in the subject's average cortical thickness. Specifically, on
a cohort of images from GE scanners, the average cortical thickness from FS6 is
2.5mm, but from FS7 is less than 2.0mm.

According to some published papers, I think 2.5mm as the average cortical
thickness is more accurate than 2.0mm.

Have you encountered this issue or question before? Do you think I should keep
using FS6? Please give me your advice. Thank you!

John.
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness on version 6 vs 7

2021-03-12 Thread Glasser, Matthew
External Email - Use Caution

For what it’s worth, we had problems with FreeSurfer 7.X with surface placement 
accuracy on HCP-Style data (i.e. 0.8-0.7mm isotropic T1w and T2w) and have 
continued to recommend using FreeSurfer 6 for the HCP Pipelines for now.  We 
usually quote 2.6mm average cortical thickness for young adults, but it does 
depend on age.

Matt.

From:  on behalf of Xiaojiang Yang 

Reply-To: Freesurfer support list 
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 10:29 AM
To: Freesurfer support list 
Subject: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness on version 6 vs 7



External Email - Use Caution
Dear Freesurfer developers,

I have a cohort of subjects that are already run under FS 6. I recently 
upgraded Freesurfer from 6.0 to 7.1.1, and now I also have run these subjects 
under FS 7.

When comparing the cortical thickness results obtained from FS6 and FS7, I 
found that FS 7 results are much smaller than the FS6 ones. On average, about 
13%-21% decrease in the subject's average cortical thickness. Specifically, on 
a cohort of images from GE scanners, the average cortical thickness from FS6 is 
2.5mm, but from FS7 is less than 2.0mm.

According to some published papers, I think 2.5mm as the average cortical 
thickness is more accurate than 2.0mm.

Have you encountered this issue or question before? Do you think I should keep 
using FS6? Please give me your advice. Thank you!

John.



The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare 
Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying 
or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail.
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness on version 6 vs 7

2021-03-12 Thread Xiaojiang Yang
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer developers,

I have a cohort of subjects that are already run under FS 6. I recently
upgraded Freesurfer from 6.0 to 7.1.1, and now I also have run these
subjects under FS 7.

When comparing the cortical thickness results obtained from FS6 and FS7, I
found that FS 7 results are much smaller than the FS6 ones. On average,
about 13%-21% decrease in the subject's average cortical thickness.
Specifically, on a cohort of images from GE scanners, the average cortical
thickness from FS6 is 2.5mm, but from FS7 is less than 2.0mm.

According to some published papers, I think 2.5mm as the average cortical
thickness is more accurate than 2.0mm.

Have you encountered this issue or question before? Do you think I should
keep using FS6? Please give me your advice. Thank you!

John.
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx label file

2021-02-12 Thread Douglas N. Greve
yes, the pial and white surfaces have the same number of vertices and 
they have the same identities


On 2/11/2021 1:25 PM, Krieger, Donald N. wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

It looks like your first answer, i.e. use of mri_annotation2label to 
extract pial labels almost gets me there. I see that the pial and 
white labels have exactly the same number and values for their 
indices. Does this mean I can use the distance between the white and 
pial vertex with the same label as a cortical thickness?


*From:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 *On Behalf Of *Krieger, Donald N.

*Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:16 PM
*To:* Freesurfer support list 
*Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point 
in a ctx label file


*External Email - Use Caution *

Thanks for getting back so quickly, Doug.

Creating pial label files will enable me to write something which does 
what I want.


What I want to do is generate a list of cortical thickness values, one 
for each vertex in a ctx label file. The main question is whether 
something to do this has already been implemented in freesurfer. If 
not, I will generate pial label files and then for each vertex in a 
ctx label file, I will find the nearest points in that ROI’s pial and 
white label files and use the sum of the two distances as the cortical 
thickness.


*From:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
<mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> 
<mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> *On Behalf Of 
*Douglas N. Greve

*Sent:* Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04 PM
*To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
*Subject:* Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point 
in a ctx label file


Not sure what you mean as the pial files are surfaces not labels or 
annotations. If you want to extract labels from the annotations you 
can use mri_annotation2label


On 2/11/2021 12:55 PM, Krieger, Donald N. wrote:

*External Email - Use Caution *

Dear freesurfer group,

I wish to measure a cortical thickness value for each entry in a
label file, e.g. SubNo/wmparc/ctx-lh-lateraloccipital_1011.label .

Is there a function in the freesurfer distribution which includes
this capability?

Also, is there a function in the distribution that produces
regional label files from the surf/[lr]h.pial files?

Thanks - Don

Don Krieger, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

Department of Neurological Surgery

University of Pittsburgh

___

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu  <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

*MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from
"secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be*
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer  
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1yMCgael11P-8BXC1CPtCYszej-LLxwANQMsYrb3adKoFjGkhUfV9ORIStMCSRsOe_P8dNCBaO0P4B7tdHLlWuVmozinfQDA_AlXMznIbFeoIxtzEgRTdXCoVZwvKfoQKlp3H30EmRYB7DI1NPD5-VgqBtGcJInUB2GVDDnsqF-ahW5T_EkzLbALa9Q41IIB8PIjG9TOOFgQSET1HdssU5STl_36i-YVovoVUzdjzu-IEjcq3OruBS4B5giQLMzor7x85PFBLHHNL-LMyWvcBJw/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fsecure-web.cisco.com%2F1ZN3ZALf66QzXz5xia0Zk7KbFg0OgiBnEdxDLqOTfP35_AoYjhumMhFs-qfZTH_aR_VTCzFdebchaIWik61qiprTZPd-I_aGstYA_IKBwJbf2_5VTBIzClhEKADONHZ2on2P7kgQapt7rXYSCjdbBrxIPRIMkSr3uUUaqlE6jp0oaVCBDlCHATjkhKGC1pz8aExBL8VVH1dYf4grkVjmEryMCVLIezFlXbkxEvObX5cM8A196Lkf0B2fzsTkrvzSV%2Fhttps%2A3A%2A2F%2A2Furldefense.com%2A2Fv3%2A2F__https%2A3A%2A2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2A2Fmailman%2A2Flistinfo%2A2Ffreesurfer__%2A3B%2A21%2A21NHLzug%2A21dzUXbohgGqav8kF57b_zRjSB-lzy7Ky8hMLH6yg_1uLvNnXtoyxkNVzQds0iw8Jr%2A24__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl%21%21NHLzug%21bNZBhtg_XCLUanSo4Vi46ShQJpUQeH9ElNWOLxspIErxySyTum3dAo-OkXB1ukrO%24>


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx label file

2021-02-11 Thread Krieger, Donald N.
External Email - Use Caution

It looks like your first answer, i.e. use of mri_annotation2label to extract 
pial labels almost gets me there. I see that the pial and white labels have 
exactly the same number and values for their indices. Does this mean I can use 
the distance between the white and pial vertex with the same label as a 
cortical thickness?

From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 On Behalf Of Krieger, Donald N.
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:16 PM
To: Freesurfer support list 
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx 
label file


External Email - Use Caution
Thanks for getting back so quickly, Doug.
Creating pial label files will enable me to write something which does what I 
want.

What I want to do is generate a list of cortical thickness values, one for each 
vertex in a ctx label file. The main question is whether something to do this 
has already been implemented in freesurfer. If not, I will generate pial label 
files and then for each vertex in a ctx label file, I will find the nearest 
points in that ROI's pial and white label files and use the sum of the two 
distances as the cortical thickness.

From: 
freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
 
mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>
 On Behalf Of Douglas N. Greve
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04 PM
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx 
label file

Not sure what you mean as the pial files are surfaces not labels or 
annotations. If you want to extract labels from the annotations you can use 
mri_annotation2label
On 2/11/2021 12:55 PM, Krieger, Donald N. wrote:

External Email - Use Caution
Dear freesurfer group,

I wish to measure a cortical thickness value for each entry in a label file, 
e.g. SubNo/wmparc/ctx-lh-lateraloccipital_1011.label .
Is there a function in the freesurfer distribution which includes this 
capability?
Also, is there a function in the distribution that produces regional label 
files from the surf/[lr]h.pial files?

Thanks - Don

[cid:image001.jpg@01D70079.6E02F790]
Don Krieger, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Department of Neurological Surgery
University of Pittsburgh



___

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" 
claiming to be 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/18XCdRcS81Jy5pDB2w-frWu2AvfWkMMxxWmYokmPxPExKBVa-m02UBEk5M5WgIQJodJAluH7oq8TODIxEuaMRqEjXETgkOJxjwQKs5nQS5izaPiDKmt8rB7M5Y7Xs7hUIpvpPcmvnOSLW6UA9bPe247cMvuZxixpJ19z7VDOaxsh3VwB4faRYBL39FJN6wbDS707U3oHl0IrCLmg6vahIPe_rTcs2eEA5BDyUCvbjzBShDTTwHB0YSsdSoogJ4VzwdSaQVzX9EFOIWMJrDSL98g/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1yMCgael11P-8BXC1CPtCYszej-LLxwANQMsYrb3adKoFjGkhUfV9ORIStMCSRsOe_P8dNCBaO0P4B7tdHLlWuVmozinfQDA_AlXMznIbFeoIxtzEgRTdXCoVZwvKfoQKlp3H30EmRYB7DI1NPD5-VgqBtGcJInUB2GVDDnsqF-ahW5T_EkzLbALa9Q41IIB8PIjG9TOOFgQSET1HdssU5STl_36i-YVovoVUzdjzu-IEjcq3OruBS4B5giQLMzor7x85PFBLHHNL-LMyWvcBJw/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fsecure-web.cisco.com%2F1ZN3ZALf66QzXz5xia0Zk7KbFg0OgiBnEdxDLqOTfP35_AoYjhumMhFs-qfZTH_aR_VTCzFdebchaIWik61qiprTZPd-I_aGstYA_IKBwJbf2_5VTBIzClhEKADONHZ2on2P7kgQapt7rXYSCjdbBrxIPRIMkSr3uUUaqlE6jp0oaVCBDlCHATjkhKGC1pz8aExBL8VVH1dYf4grkVjmEryMCVLIezFlXbkxEvObX5cM8A196Lkf0B2fzsTkrvzSV%2Fhttps%2A3A%2A2F%2A2Furldefense.com%2A2Fv3%2A2F__https%2A3A%2A2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2A2Fmailman%2A2Flistinfo%2A2Ffreesurfer__%2A3B%2A21%2A21NHLzug%2A21dzUXbohgGqav8kF57b_zRjSB-lzy7Ky8hMLH6yg_1uLvNnXtoyxkNVzQds0iw8Jr%2A24__%3BJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUlJSUl%21%21NHLzug%21bNZBhtg_XCLUanSo4Vi46ShQJpUQeH9ElNWOLxspIErxySyTum3dAo-OkXB1ukrO%24>

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx label file

2021-02-11 Thread Krieger, Donald N.
External Email - Use Caution

Thanks for getting back so quickly, Doug.
Creating pial label files will enable me to write something which does what I 
want.

What I want to do is generate a list of cortical thickness values, one for each 
vertex in a ctx label file. The main question is whether something to do this 
has already been implemented in freesurfer. If not, I will generate pial label 
files and then for each vertex in a ctx label file, I will find the nearest 
points in that ROI's pial and white label files and use the sum of the two 
distances as the cortical thickness.

From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 On Behalf Of Douglas N. Greve
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04 PM
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx 
label file

Not sure what you mean as the pial files are surfaces not labels or 
annotations. If you want to extract labels from the annotations you can use 
mri_annotation2label
On 2/11/2021 12:55 PM, Krieger, Donald N. wrote:

External Email - Use Caution
Dear freesurfer group,

I wish to measure a cortical thickness value for each entry in a label file, 
e.g. SubNo/wmparc/ctx-lh-lateraloccipital_1011.label .
Is there a function in the freesurfer distribution which includes this 
capability?
Also, is there a function in the distribution that produces regional label 
files from the surf/[lr]h.pial files?

Thanks - Don

[cid:image001.jpg@01D70078.13992C80]
Don Krieger, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Department of Neurological Surgery
University of Pittsburgh




___

Freesurfer mailing list

Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

https://secure-web.cisco.com/1AjM-lTd5K0u1rIRcEvCL1BdmzwlnHAoEnqpEoZ6kBLe0VcBKOU0yRsu-ASvF0QHJyMsXdiDrEvyJoHrc8O4k3DvPdWe4sV3KUX45fryIfJcQXJ1VuoYHxCA0Um1DO-UVWIYF3M2KntUVpVy8kU6x52MJRN0Ly0oAiyoxxmoABVJkGfx9l_KKeHAgvjRitdNY54HOYOXZRc9DA0K_u5JZ57OKErj7LTMFd89kkksy34tAZs6W12fiGildrhj2DURq/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZN3ZALf66QzXz5xia0Zk7KbFg0OgiBnEdxDLqOTfP35_AoYjhumMhFs-qfZTH_aR_VTCzFdebchaIWik61qiprTZPd-I_aGstYA_IKBwJbf2_5VTBIzClhEKADONHZ2on2P7kgQapt7rXYSCjdbBrxIPRIMkSr3uUUaqlE6jp0oaVCBDlCHATjkhKGC1pz8aExBL8VVH1dYf4grkVjmEryMCVLIezFlXbkxEvObX5cM8A196Lkf0B2fzsTkrvzSV/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer__%3B%21%21NHLzug%21dzUXbohgGqav8kF57b_zRjSB-lzy7Ky8hMLH6yg_1uLvNnXtoyxkNVzQds0iw8Jr%24>

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx label file

2021-02-11 Thread Douglas N. Greve
Not sure what you mean as the pial files are surfaces not labels or 
annotations. If you want to extract labels from the annotations you can 
use mri_annotation2label


On 2/11/2021 12:55 PM, Krieger, Donald N. wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Dear freesurfer group,

I wish to measure a cortical thickness value for each entry in a label 
file, e.g. SubNo/wmparc/ctx-lh-lateraloccipital_1011.label .


Is there a function in the freesurfer distribution which includes this 
capability?


Also, is there a function in the distribution that produces regional 
label files from the surf/[lr]h.pial files?


Thanks - Don

Don Krieger, Ph.D.

Research Scientist

Department of Neurological Surgery

University of Pittsburgh


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] cortical thickness values for each point in a ctx label file

2021-02-11 Thread Krieger, Donald N.
External Email - Use Caution

Dear freesurfer group,

I wish to measure a cortical thickness value for each entry in a label file, 
e.g. SubNo/wmparc/ctx-lh-lateraloccipital_1011.label .
Is there a function in the freesurfer distribution which includes this 
capability?
Also, is there a function in the distribution that produces regional label 
files from the surf/[lr]h.pial files?

Thanks - Don

[cid:image003.jpg@01D70075.1EC687E0]
Don Krieger, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Department of Neurological Surgery
University of Pittsburgh

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness ROI

2021-02-02 Thread Douglas N. Greve
Yes, you can use mris_apply_reg to map the label/annotation back to the 
individual, then mri_label2vol to map it into the DTI space, then use 
mri_segstats to extract the mean value from the ROI


On 2/1/2021 1:15 PM, Sara Lyn wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Hi Freesurfer developers,

I wanted to know if I could use an ROI obtained from cortical 
thickness group analysis to obtain FA values from that same ROI for 
each of the subjects. Appreciate any guidance, thank you.


Sincerely,
Sara

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] cortical thickness ROI

2021-02-01 Thread Sara Lyn
External Email - Use Caution

Hi Freesurfer developers,

I wanted to know if I could use an ROI obtained from cortical thickness
group analysis to obtain FA values from that same ROI for each of the
subjects. Appreciate any guidance, thank you.

Sincerely,
Sara
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness volume ROI to surface {Disarmed}

2020-11-17 Thread Alina Rojas
External Email - Use Caution

Thank you for your response! Here the commands:


#register image to MNIspace
flirt -in mydata_T1.nii.gz -ref fsl/data/standard/MNI152_T1_1mm -out 
mydata_T1_MNI.nii.gz -omat mydata_T1_MNI.mat
#Create a registration from the ROI-anatomical volume to a freesurfer template 
subject
fslregister --s fsaverage --mov mydata_T1_MNI.nii.gz  --reg tmp.dat
#Map the ROI-mask to the fsaverage surface, to create an fsaverage-ROI surface 
overlay.
mri_vol2surf --mov ROI_MNI.nii.gz --reg tmp.dat --projdist-max 0 1 0.1 --interp 
nearest --hemi lh --out lh.fsaverage.ROI_MNI.mgh —noreshape

tkmeditfv fsaverage lh inflated -overlay lh.fsaverage.M1_L.mgh -fthresh 0.5

I tried with another threshold, and to change it while in Freeview and it’s 
either the whole surface with the overlay or none.

Thank you for your help!

Alina Rojas 




> Am 16.11.2020 um 17:04 schrieb Douglas N. Greve :
> 
> please send the command line
> 
> On 11/16/2020 7:20 AM, Alina Rojas wrote:
>> External Email - Use Caution
>> 
>> Hello Freesurfer experts,
>> 
>> I am attempting to register a ROI (.nii) to the surface of fsaverage to get 
>> the statistical output on the cortical thickness. I followed your 
>> instructions on MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from 
>> "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to 
>> behttps://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/VolumeRoiCorticalThickness 
>> 
>>  but after mri_vol2surf I get this message, I can’t visualize the ROI on the 
>> surface. I I’m using Freesurfer 7.0.1. How can I solve this? Thank you, 
>> Alina Rojas.
>> 
>> srcvol = M1_L.nii.gz
>> srcreg = tmp.dat
>> srcregold = 0
>> srcwarp unspecified
>> surf = white
>> hemi = lh
>> ProjDist = 0.5
>> reshape = 0
>> interp = nearest
>> float2int = round
>> GetProjMax = 1
>> INFO: float2int code = 0
>> INFO: using NIfTI-1 qform 
>> Done loading volume
>> INFO: This REGISTER_DAT transform is valid only for volumes between  COR 
>> types with c_(r,a,s) = 0.
>> Input reg is register.dat
>>  original matrix ---
>>  1.0   0.0   0.0   2.49380;
>>  0.0   0.0   1.0  -22.50500;
>>  0.0  -1.0   0.0  -9.53872;
>>  0.0   0.0   0.0   1.0;
>>  original matrix ---
>> Reading surface /fsaverage/surf/lh.white
>> Done reading source surface
>> Mapping Source Volume onto Source Subject Surface
>>  1 0 0 1
>> using old
>>  2 0.1 0 1
>> using old
>>  3 0.2 0 1
>> using old
>>  4 0.3 0 1
>> using old
>>  5 0.4 0 1
>> using old
>>  6 0.5 0 1
>> using old
>>  7 0.6 0 1
>> using old
>>  8 0.7 0 1
>> using old
>>  9 0.8 0 1
>> using old
>> 10 0.9 0 1
>> using old
>> Done mapping volume to surface
>> Number of source voxels hit = 75073
>> Writing to lh.fsaverage.M1_L.mgh
>> Dim: 163842 1 1
>> surfcolor: Subscript out of range.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Freesurfer mailing list
>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/182BqfOmZHFfN-HXG0WKcZl1t7mCNEi6craJT61YlVMJ8c1BoYM9RlZhjXTzA4TeZ05e3OGT-xSV3Uin7CmBt_0BPg_0i1AWtJU1vZn2DKlHVGhyXp5WKXs1Q8ReIzK9xXEDa8NUDM3gsQVJpynhZD0gBj8FZlLEe9wNRv_4oDjFKtbqnX17Bqp5oWazA3LmrSeY0WMS-oVyt6_TjHFXCvvRLqx34lzCC8Be07NxJdDYc7K9_JaqoorFJc4KzIlIupp0UXZJiXV-VI33g3W95uw/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer
>>  
>> 
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> https://secure-web.cisco.com/182BqfOmZHFfN-HXG0WKcZl1t7mCNEi6craJT61YlVMJ8c1BoYM9RlZhjXTzA4TeZ05e3OGT-xSV3Uin7CmBt_0BPg_0i1AWtJU1vZn2DKlHVGhyXp5WKXs1Q8ReIzK9xXEDa8NUDM3gsQVJpynhZD0gBj8FZlLEe9wNRv_4oDjFKtbqnX17Bqp5oWazA3LmrSeY0WMS-oVyt6_TjHFXCvvRLqx34lzCC8Be07NxJdDYc7K9_JaqoorFJc4KzIlIupp0UXZJiXV-VI33g3W95uw/https%3A%2F%2Fmail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffreesurfer
>  
> 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness volume ROI to surface {Disarmed}

2020-11-16 Thread Douglas N. Greve

please send the command line

On 11/16/2020 7:20 AM, Alina Rojas wrote:


External Email - Use Caution

Hello Freesurfer experts,

I am attempting to register a ROI (.nii) to the surface of fsaverage 
to get the statistical output on the cortical thickness. I followed 
your instructions on *MailScanner has detected a possible fraud 
attempt from "secure-web.cisco.com" claiming to be* 
https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/VolumeRoiCorticalThickness 
 but 
after mri_vol2surf I get this message, I can’t visualize the ROI on 
the surface. I I’m using Freesurfer 7.0.1. How can I solve this? Thank 
you, Alina Rojas.


srcvol = M1_L.nii.gz
srcreg = tmp.dat
srcregold = 0
srcwarp unspecified
surf = white
hemi = lh
ProjDist = 0.5
reshape = 0
interp = nearest
float2int = round
GetProjMax = 1
INFO: float2int code = 0
INFO: using NIfTI-1 qform
Done loading volume
INFO: This REGISTER_DAT transform is valid only for volumes between  
COR types with c_(r,a,s) = 0.

Input reg is register.dat
 original matrix ---
 1.0   0.0   0.0   2.49380;
 0.0   0.0   1.0  -22.50500;
 0.0 -1.0   0.0  -9.53872;
 0.0   0.0   0.0   1.0;
 original matrix ---
Reading surface /fsaverage/surf/lh.white
Done reading source surface
Mapping Source Volume onto Source Subject Surface
 1 0 0 1
using old
 2 0.1 0 1
using old
 3 0.2 0 1
using old
 4 0.3 0 1
using old
 5 0.4 0 1
using old
 6 0.5 0 1
using old
 7 0.6 0 1
using old
 8 0.7 0 1
using old
 9 0.8 0 1
using old
10 0.9 0 1
using old
Done mapping volume to surface
Number of source voxels hit = 75073
Writing to lh.fsaverage.M1_L.mgh
Dim: 163842 1 1
surfcolor: Subscript out of range.




___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness volume ROI to surface {Disarmed}

2020-11-16 Thread Alina Rojas
External Email - Use Caution

Hello Freesurfer experts,

I am attempting to register a ROI (.nii) to the surface of fsaverage to get the 
statistical output on the cortical thickness. I followed your instructions on 
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1vMR3HBqveQVdV1izVoGaJ5VcRtbR7HBn6ADoe1ai7ok5utz9wmCB_PLEjDtsOmyziziVBQRSmBgczrdyk56eX0vaBWBNP1iIevBdxOho3o-JJ64DuVK1J6XpzIFNVqqzBDHDrU6O2cYjWTNnglb4Ow4OIdXr5Qq28eboicyUSvLl2KmB0P0lQY9abQIfjX6hs_1Q1FvwX1Tx7YnGwsbJIgqcpDRG0dkvqZc0pgeiBQbnNjLadwozbHME2Ale8Kt0-V-I2Urmgq5zbEhzlAPvCA/https%3A%2F%2Fsurfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu%2Ffswiki%2FVolumeRoiCorticalThickness
 

 but after mri_vol2surf I get this message, I can’t visualize the ROI on the 
surface. I I’m using Freesurfer 7.0.1. How can I solve this? Thank you, Alina 
Rojas.

srcvol = M1_L.nii.gz
srcreg = tmp.dat
srcregold = 0
srcwarp unspecified
surf = white
hemi = lh
ProjDist = 0.5
reshape = 0
interp = nearest
float2int = round
GetProjMax = 1
INFO: float2int code = 0
INFO: using NIfTI-1 qform 
Done loading volume
INFO: This REGISTER_DAT transform is valid only for volumes between  COR types 
with c_(r,a,s) = 0.
Input reg is register.dat
 original matrix ---
 1.0   0.0   0.0   2.49380;
 0.0   0.0   1.0  -22.50500;
 0.0  -1.0   0.0  -9.53872;
 0.0   0.0   0.0   1.0;
 original matrix ---
Reading surface /fsaverage/surf/lh.white
Done reading source surface
Mapping Source Volume onto Source Subject Surface
 1 0 0 1
using old
 2 0.1 0 1
using old
 3 0.2 0 1
using old
 4 0.3 0 1
using old
 5 0.4 0 1
using old
 6 0.5 0 1
using old
 7 0.6 0 1
using old
 8 0.7 0 1
using old
 9 0.8 0 1
using old
10 0.9 0 1
using old
Done mapping volume to surface
Number of source voxels hit = 75073
Writing to lh.fsaverage.M1_L.mgh
Dim: 163842 1 1
surfcolor: Subscript out of range.



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness

2020-07-06 Thread Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
I got my answer. Thanks so much


> On Jul 6, 2020, at 1:31 PM, Fischl, Bruce  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question. We compute the distance between 
> minimum distances between the white and pial in mm, then compute the minimum 
> between the pial and the white, then average them (all in mm)
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>  On Behalf Of Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 1:00 PM
> To: Freesurfer support list 
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness
> 
> Thanks for your response Bruce.
> Does FS calculate the distance between the surface and CSF border in 
> Euclidean and then converts it into mm?
> 
> Thanks
> Mona
> 
> 
>> On Jul 6, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Fischl, Bruce  wrote:
>> 
>> yes
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>>  On Behalf Of Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
>> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:31 PM
>> To: Freesurfer support list 
>> Subject: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness
>> 
>> Hi Freesurfer experts
>> 
>> I have a question about the way FS calculates cortical thickness and I 
>> appreciate if you could please respond.
>> I calculated the cortical thickness using read_curv script in a specific ROI 
>> in parietal lobe. 
>> The mean thickness at that area was 2.4. Does this number show the cortical 
>> thickness in millimeter? 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> MOna
>> ___
>> Freesurfer mailing list
>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>> 
>> ___
>> Freesurfer mailing list
>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
> 
> 
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
> 
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness

2020-07-06 Thread Fischl, Bruce
I'm not sure I understand your question. We compute the distance between 
minimum distances between the white and pial in mm, then compute the minimum 
between the pial and the white, then average them (all in mm)

-Original Message-
From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 On Behalf Of Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 1:00 PM
To: Freesurfer support list 
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness

Thanks for your response Bruce.
Does FS calculate the distance between the surface and CSF border in Euclidean 
and then converts it into mm?

Thanks
Mona


> On Jul 6, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Fischl, Bruce  wrote:
> 
> yes
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>  On Behalf Of Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:31 PM
> To: Freesurfer support list 
> Subject: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness
> 
> Hi Freesurfer experts
> 
> I have a question about the way FS calculates cortical thickness and I 
> appreciate if you could please respond.
> I calculated the cortical thickness using read_curv script in a specific ROI 
> in parietal lobe. 
> The mean thickness at that area was 2.4. Does this number show the cortical 
> thickness in millimeter? 
> 
> Thanks
> MOna
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
> 
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness

2020-07-06 Thread Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
Thanks for your response Bruce.
Does FS calculate the distance between the surface and CSF border in Euclidean 
and then converts it into mm?

Thanks
Mona


> On Jul 6, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Fischl, Bruce  wrote:
> 
> yes
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>  On Behalf Of Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:31 PM
> To: Freesurfer support list 
> Subject: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness
> 
> Hi Freesurfer experts
> 
> I have a question about the way FS calculates cortical thickness and I 
> appreciate if you could please respond.
> I calculated the cortical thickness using read_curv script in a specific ROI 
> in parietal lobe. 
> The mean thickness at that area was 2.4. Does this number show the cortical 
> thickness in millimeter? 
> 
> Thanks
> MOna
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
> 
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness

2020-07-06 Thread Fischl, Bruce
yes

-Original Message-
From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 On Behalf Of Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 12:31 PM
To: Freesurfer support list 
Subject: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness

Hi Freesurfer experts

I have a question about the way FS calculates cortical thickness and I 
appreciate if you could please respond.
I calculated the cortical thickness using read_curv script in a specific ROI in 
parietal lobe. 
The mean thickness at that area was 2.4. Does this number show the cortical 
thickness in millimeter? 

Thanks
MOna
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


[Freesurfer] cortical thickness

2020-07-06 Thread Nasiriavanaki, Zahra
Hi Freesurfer experts

I have a question about the way FS calculates cortical thickness and I 
appreciate if you could please respond.
I calculated the cortical thickness using read_curv script in a specific ROI in 
parietal lobe. 
The mean thickness at that area was 2.4. Does this number show the cortical 
thickness in millimeter? 

Thanks
MOna
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness measure for external analysis.

2020-04-23 Thread Bruce Fischl
you should be fine with the subject metrics we generate. Typically 
thickness doesn't need much if any eTIV correction
On Thu, 23 Apr 2020, 
Miguel Ángel Rivas Fernández wrote:




External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer experts,

We are interested in running external analysis with thickness measurements
of two brain regions. Can we use safely the metrics exported or by contrary
a previous transformation is required before export the stats of each
subject?

Thanks for your time.

Best regards,

--
Miguel Ángel Rivas Fernández

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness measure for external analysis.

2020-04-23 Thread Miguel Ángel Rivas Fernández
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Freesurfer experts,

We are interested in running external analysis with thickness measurements
of two brain regions. Can we use safely the metrics exported or by contrary
a previous transformation is required before export the stats of each
subject?

Thanks for your time.

Best regards,

-- 
*Miguel Ángel Rivas Fernández*
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

2019-11-18 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
The sig file

On 11/15/19 9:16 AM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Thank you so much for your repsonse.
> Could you maybe please tell us which input file we should use?
>
> Best wishes,
> AIcha
> 
> *Van:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>  namens Greve, Douglas 
> N.,Ph.D. 
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 31 oktober 2019 19:16
> *Aan:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex 
> base level
> You can run mri_surfcluster with your fdr threshold as the --thmin
> value. This will output cluster number (ocn) map. This will assign the
> cluster number to a vertex. You can then use mri_segstats with --seg
> ocn.mgz --excludeid 0 and input being the mean thickness or area maps.
> When you use area as thhe input, make sure to --accumulate to get the
> total area. You can get an area map in the same way that you got the
> thickness map, ie, mris_preproc, etc
>
> On 10/31/19 1:28 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
> >
> > External Email - Use Caution
> >
> > Dear Greve,
> >
> > Thank you for your quick respons.
> >
> > Yes, I believe that is what I mean. Let me illustrate with some
> > (fictive) data;
> > We were able to prove these data for the entire hemisphere as can be
> > seen below.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Group 1*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Group 2*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Difference*
> >
> >
> >
> > */Sig./*
> >
> > Thickness
> >
> > (in mm)
> >
> >
> >
> > Left
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.48
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.46
> >
> >
> >
> > .004
> >
> >
> >
> > .19
> >
> > Right
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.46
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.46
> >
> >
> >
> > .003
> >
> >
> >
> > .03
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > However, we would like to provide similar data in our vertex-base
> > analyses:
> >
> > *Significantly different clusters between group 1 and group 2*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Cortical thickness group 1*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Cortical thickness group 2*
> >
> >
> >
> > *Difference in mm2*
> >
> >
> >
> > */Sig./*
> >
> > Left Cuneus
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > 0.013
> >
> > Left Fusiform gyrus
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > 0.021
> >
> > Right Paracentral lobule
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > 0.001
> >
> > Right parahippocampal gyrus
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > 0.002
> >
> >
> > Does this clarify my question?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Aicha
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > *Van:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> >  namens Greve, Douglas
> > N.,Ph.D. 
> > *Verzonden:* donderdag 31 oktober 2019 16:25
> > *Aan:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex
> > base level
> > I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want the mean thickness of a cluster
> > and/or its surface area?
> >
> > On 10/30/19 6:02 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
> > >
> > > External Email - Use Caution
> > >
> > > Dear developers,
> > >
> > > For a case-control study we are comparing the cortical thickness and
> > > cortical surface area on a vertex-base level, for which we found
> > > significant differences throughout the brain.
> > >
> > > Is it possible that, in addition to the significance values (p < .05
> > > after FDR correction) on a vertex-base level, we can include the exact
> > > thickness or surface area value (or difference) of the significant
> > > clusters on a vertex base-level between the groups. In order words, to
> > &g

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

2019-11-15 Thread Aicha Dijkshoorn
External Email - Use Caution

Thank you so much for your repsonse.
Could you maybe please tell us which input file we should use?

Best wishes,
AIcha

Van: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 namens Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 

Verzonden: donderdag 31 oktober 2019 19:16
Aan: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
Onderwerp: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

You can run mri_surfcluster with your fdr threshold as the --thmin
value. This will output cluster number (ocn) map. This will assign the
cluster number to a vertex. You can then use mri_segstats with --seg
ocn.mgz --excludeid 0 and input being the mean thickness or area maps.
When you use area as thhe input, make sure to --accumulate to get the
total area. You can get an area map in the same way that you got the
thickness map, ie, mris_preproc, etc

On 10/31/19 1:28 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Dear Greve,
>
> Thank you for your quick respons.
>
> Yes, I believe that is what I mean. Let me illustrate with some
> (fictive) data;
> We were able to prove these data for the entire hemisphere as can be
> seen below.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Group 1*
>
>
>
> *Group 2*
>
>
>
> *Difference*
>
>
>
> */Sig./*
>
> Thickness
>
> (in mm)
>
>
>
> Left
>
>
>
> 1.48
>
>
>
> 1.46
>
>
>
> .004
>
>
>
> .19
>
> Right
>
>
>
> 1.46
>
>
>
> 1.46
>
>
>
> .003
>
>
>
> .03
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, we would like to provide similar data in our vertex-base
> analyses:
>
> *Significantly different clusters between group 1 and group 2*
>
>
>
> *Cortical thickness group 1*
>
>
>
> *Cortical thickness group 2*
>
>
>
> *Difference in mm2*
>
>
>
> */Sig./*
>
> Left Cuneus
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> 0.013
>
> Left Fusiform gyrus
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> 0.021
>
> Right Paracentral lobule
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> 0.001
>
> Right parahippocampal gyrus
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> 0.002
>
>
> Does this clarify my question?
>
> Best wishes,
> Aicha
>
>
>
> 
> *Van:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>  namens Greve, Douglas
> N.,Ph.D. 
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 31 oktober 2019 16:25
> *Aan:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex
> base level
> I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want the mean thickness of a cluster
> and/or its surface area?
>
> On 10/30/19 6:02 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
> >
> > External Email - Use Caution
> >
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > For a case-control study we are comparing the cortical thickness and
> > cortical surface area on a vertex-base level, for which we found
> > significant differences throughout the brain.
> >
> > Is it possible that, in addition to the significance values (p < .05
> > after FDR correction) on a vertex-base level, we can include the exact
> > thickness or surface area value (or difference) of the significant
> > clusters on a vertex base-level between the groups. In order words, to
> > provide some measures to highlight the size of the significant cluster
> > or the differences in cortical thickness / cortical surface area to
> > provide clinically useful context. For instance, a command comparable
> > to 'voxel size' in TBSS.
> >
> > As this is my first time using Freesurfer any help that you could
> > offer on this matter would be highly appreciated.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Brigitte Dijkshoorn
> >
> > ___
> > Freesurfer mailing list
> > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

2019-10-31 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
You can run mri_surfcluster with your fdr threshold as the --thmin 
value. This will output cluster number (ocn) map. This will assign the 
cluster number to a vertex. You can then use mri_segstats with --seg 
ocn.mgz --excludeid 0 and input being the mean thickness or area maps. 
When you use area as thhe input, make sure to --accumulate to get the 
total area. You can get an area map in the same way that you got the 
thickness map, ie, mris_preproc, etc

On 10/31/19 1:28 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Dear Greve,
>
> Thank you for your quick respons.
>
> Yes, I believe that is what I mean. Let me illustrate with some 
> (fictive) data;
> We were able to prove these data for the entire hemisphere as can be 
> seen below.
>
>   
>
>   
>
> *Group 1*
>
>   
>
> *Group 2*
>
>   
>
> *Difference*
>
>   
>
> */Sig./*
>
> Thickness
>
> (in mm)
>
>   
>
> Left
>
>   
>
> 1.48
>
>   
>
> 1.46
>
>   
>
> .004
>
>   
>
> .19
>
> Right
>
>   
>
> 1.46
>
>   
>
> 1.46
>
>   
>
> .003
>
>   
>
> .03
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, we would like to provide similar data in our vertex-base 
> analyses:
>
> *Significantly different clusters between group 1 and group 2*
>
>   
>
> *Cortical thickness group 1*
>
>   
>
> *Cortical thickness group 2*
>
>   
>
> *Difference in mm2*
>
>   
>
> */Sig./*
>
> Left Cuneus
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> 0.013
>
> Left Fusiform gyrus
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> 0.021
>
> Right Paracentral lobule
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> 0.001
>
> Right parahippocampal gyrus
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> ?
>
>   
>
> 0.002
>
>
> Does this clarify my question?
>
> Best wishes,
> Aicha
>
>
>
> 
> *Van:* freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>  namens Greve, Douglas 
> N.,Ph.D. 
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 31 oktober 2019 16:25
> *Aan:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex 
> base level
> I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want the mean thickness of a cluster
> and/or its surface area?
>
> On 10/30/19 6:02 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
> >
> > External Email - Use Caution
> >
> > Dear developers,
> >
> > For a case-control study we are comparing the cortical thickness and
> > cortical surface area on a vertex-base level, for which we found
> > significant differences throughout the brain.
> >
> > Is it possible that, in addition to the significance values (p < .05
> > after FDR correction) on a vertex-base level, we can include the exact
> > thickness or surface area value (or difference) of the significant
> > clusters on a vertex base-level between the groups. In order words, to
> > provide some measures to highlight the size of the significant cluster
> > or the differences in cortical thickness / cortical surface area to
> > provide clinically useful context. For instance, a command comparable
> > to 'voxel size' in TBSS.
> >
> > As this is my first time using Freesurfer any help that you could
> > offer on this matter would be highly appreciated.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Brigitte Dijkshoorn
> >
> > ___
> > Freesurfer mailing list
> > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> > https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

2019-10-31 Thread Aicha Dijkshoorn
External Email - Use Caution

Dear Greve,

Thank you for your quick respons.

Yes, I believe that is what I mean. Let me illustrate with some (fictive) data;
We were able to prove these data for the entire hemisphere as can be seen below.






Group 1

Group 2

Difference

Sig.

Thickness

(in mm)

Left

1.48

1.46

.004

.19

Right

1.46

1.46

.003

.03





However, we would like to provide similar data in our vertex-base analyses:

Significantly different clusters between group 1 and group 2

Cortical thickness group 1

Cortical thickness group 2

Difference in mm2

Sig.

Left Cuneus

?

?

?

0.013

Left Fusiform gyrus

?

?

?

0.021

Right Paracentral lobule

?

?

?

0.001

Right parahippocampal gyrus

?

?

?

0.002

Does this clarify my question?

Best wishes,
Aicha




Van: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 namens Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 

Verzonden: donderdag 31 oktober 2019 16:25
Aan: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
Onderwerp: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want the mean thickness of a cluster
and/or its surface area?

On 10/30/19 6:02 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Dear developers,
>
> For a case-control study we are comparing the cortical thickness and
> cortical surface area on a vertex-base level, for which we found
> significant differences throughout the brain.
>
> Is it possible that, in addition to the significance values (p < .05
> after FDR correction) on a vertex-base level, we can include the exact
> thickness or surface area value (or difference) of the significant
> clusters on a vertex base-level between the groups. In order words, to
> provide some measures to highlight the size of the significant cluster
> or the differences in cortical thickness / cortical surface area to
> provide clinically useful context. For instance, a command comparable
> to 'voxel size' in TBSS.
>
> As this is my first time using Freesurfer any help that you could
> offer on this matter would be highly appreciated.
>
> Best wishes,
> Brigitte Dijkshoorn
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

2019-10-31 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want the mean thickness of a cluster 
and/or its surface area?

On 10/30/19 6:02 PM, Aicha Dijkshoorn wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Dear developers,
>
> For a case-control study we are comparing the cortical thickness and 
> cortical surface area on a vertex-base level, for which we found 
> significant differences throughout the brain.
>
> Is it possible that, in addition to the significance values (p < .05 
> after FDR correction) on a vertex-base level, we can include the exact 
> thickness or surface area value (or difference) of the significant 
> clusters on a vertex base-level between the groups. In order words, to 
> provide some measures to highlight the size of the significant cluster 
> or the differences in cortical thickness / cortical surface area to 
> provide clinically useful context. For instance, a command comparable 
> to 'voxel size' in TBSS.
>
> As this is my first time using Freesurfer any help that you could 
> offer on this matter would be highly appreciated.
>
> Best wishes,
> Brigitte Dijkshoorn
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values on a vertex base level

2019-10-30 Thread Aicha Dijkshoorn
External Email - Use Caution

Dear developers,

For a case-control study we are comparing the cortical thickness and cortical 
surface area on a vertex-base level, for which we found significant differences 
throughout the brain.

Is it possible that, in addition to the significance values (p < .05 after FDR 
correction) on a vertex-base level, we can include the exact thickness or 
surface area value (or difference) of the significant clusters on a vertex 
base-level between the groups. In order words, to provide some measures to 
highlight the size of the significant cluster or the differences in cortical 
thickness / cortical surface area to provide clinically useful context. For 
instance, a command comparable to 'voxel size' in TBSS.

As this is my first time using Freesurfer any help that you could offer on this 
matter would be highly appreciated.

Best wishes,
Brigitte Dijkshoorn
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness (spc) extraction

2019-09-19 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
You can run corrections for multiple comparisons (mri_glmfit-sim) to get 
clusters of significant effects, then compute the mean over those clusters.

On 9/19/19 8:08 AM, AKUDJEDU, THEOPHILUS wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
>
> Dear FreeSurfer,
>
> I used QDEC for the longitudinal two‐stage model analyses, where 
> temporal data within each subject was reduced to a symmetrised percent 
> rate of change (spc) maps using the/long_mris_slopes/function for data 
> acquired at two time-point. I observed an abnormal region with 
> different spc in patients relative to controls over time. *How do I 
> extract the spc for this region in each individual? What scripts do I 
> use?*
> Thanks
> Theo
>
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness (spc) extraction

2019-09-19 Thread AKUDJEDU, THEOPHILUS
External Email - Use Caution

Dear FreeSurfer,

I used QDEC for the longitudinal two‐stage model analyses, where temporal data 
within each subject was reduced to a symmetrised percent rate of change (spc) 
maps using the long_mris_slopes function for data acquired at two time-point. I 
observed an abnormal region with different spc in patients relative to controls 
over time. How do I extract the spc for this region in each individual? What 
scripts do I use?
Thanks
Theo

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Extraction

2019-05-11 Thread Bruce Fischl

Hi Emma

in principle of volume is proportional to ICV you would need to scale the 
thickness by (ICV)^(1/3). In practice we find that scaling the thickness 
doesn't really change the variance and loses you a DOF so we don't usually 
do it.


cheers
Bruce


On Sat, 11 May 2019, Bunting, Emma wrote:



External Email - Use Caution

 Hi Doug,

 

Why should we not scale the thickness by the ICV? This is what we had thought 
to be the norm based
on the literature,

 

  How would you advise normalising these values instead?

 

   Best wishes,

 

   Emma

 

 Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. Mon, 18 Mar 2019 07:56:18 -0700

They do not have any normalization applied. BTW, you should not scale the 


thickness by the ICV

 

On 3/18/19 10:24 AM, Bunting, Emma wrote:

 

    External Email - Use Caution

Hi Freesurfer experts,

 

I used a script created by ENIGMA to extract the cortical thickness values for 


129 subjects that had undergone reconall processing.

 

 

We are using these values in VBM analysis. From reading other papers, we notice 

that all regional volumes are usually normalised by dividing by total 


intracranial volumes for each subject.

 

 

 

I’m just wondering whether the values we are extracting from our freesurfer 


output files have already had this normalisation applied?

 

The script we’ve used as follows:

 

 

#!/bin/bash

 

echo 


'SubjID,L_bankssts_thickavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_cun
eus_thickavg,L_entorhinal_thickavg,L_fusiform_thickavg,L_inferiorparietal_thickavg,L_inferiortempor
al_thickavg,L_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,L_lateraloccipital_thickavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg
,L_lingual_thickavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_middletemporal_thickavg,L_parahippocampal_thic
kavg,L_paracentral_thickavg,L_parsopercularis_thickavg,L_parsorbitalis_thickavg,L_parstriangularis_
thickavg,L_pericalcarine_thickavg,L_postcentral_thickavg,L_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_precentral
_thickavg,L_precuneus_thickavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,
L_superiorfrontal_thickavg,L_superiorparietal_thickavg,L_superiortemporal_thickavg,L_supramarginal_
thickavg,L_frontalpole_thickavg,L_temporalpole_thickavg,L_transversetemporal_thickavg,L_insula_thic
kavg,R_bankssts_thickavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_cuneus
_thickavg,R_entorhinal_thickavg,R_fusiform_thickavg,R_inferiorparietal_thickavg,R_inferiortemporal_
thickavg,R_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,R_lateraloccipital_thickavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_
lingual_thickavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_middletemporal_thickavg,R_parahippocampal_thickav
g,R_paracentral_thickavg,R_parsopercularis_thickavg,R_parsorbitalis_thickavg,R_parstriangularis_thi
ckavg,R_pericalcarine_thickavg,R_postcentral_thickavg,R_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_precentral_th
ickavg,R_precuneus_thickavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_s
uperiorfrontal_thickavg,R_superiorparietal_thickavg,R_superiortemporal_thickavg,R_supramarginal_thi
ckavg,R_frontalpole_thickavg,R_temporalpole_thickavg,R_transversetemporal_thickavg,R_insula_thickav
g,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'

 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_ThickAvg.csv

echo 


'SubjID,L_bankssts_surfavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_cuneus
_surfavg,L_entorhinal_surfavg,L_fusiform_surfavg,L_inferiorparietal_surfavg,L_inferiortemporal_surf
avg,L_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,L_lateraloccipital_surfavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_lingual_
surfavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_middletemporal_surfavg,L_parahippocampal_surfavg,L_paracent
ral_surfavg,L_parsopercularis_surfavg,L_parsorbitalis_surfavg,L_parstriangularis_surfavg,L_pericalc
arine_surfavg,L_postcentral_surfavg,L_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_precentral_surfavg,L_precuneus_s
urfavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_superiorfrontal_surfavg,
L_superiorparietal_surfavg,L_superiortemporal_surfavg,L_supramarginal_surfavg,L_frontalpole_surfavg
,L_temporalpole_surfavg,L_transversetemporal_surfavg,L_insula_surfavg,R_bankssts_surfavg,R_caudalan
teriorcingulate_surfavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_cuneus_surfavg,R_entorhinal_surfavg,R_fusif
orm_surfavg,R_inferiorparietal_surfavg,R_inferiortemporal_surfavg,R_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,R_late
raloccipital_surfavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_lingual_surfavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Extraction

2019-05-11 Thread Bunting, Emma
External Email - Use Caution

Hi Doug,

Why should we not scale the thickness by the ICV? This is what we had thought 
to be the norm based on the literature,

How would you advise normalising these values instead?

Best wishes,

Emma

Greve, Douglas 
N.,Ph.D.
 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 07:56:18 
-0700

They do not have any normalization applied. BTW, you should not scale the

thickness by the ICV



On 3/18/19 10:24 AM, Bunting, Emma wrote:



External Email - Use Caution

Hi Freesurfer experts,



I used a script created by ENIGMA to extract the cortical thickness values for

129 subjects that had undergone reconall processing.





We are using these values in VBM analysis. From reading other papers, we notice

that all regional volumes are usually normalised by dividing by total

intracranial volumes for each subject.







I’m just wondering whether the values we are extracting from our freesurfer

output files have already had this normalisation applied?



The script we’ve used as follows:





#!/bin/bash



echo

'SubjID,L_bankssts_thickavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_cuneus_thickavg,L_entorhinal_thickavg,L_fusiform_thickavg,L_inferiorparietal_thickavg,L_inferiortemporal_thickavg,L_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,L_lateraloccipital_thickavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_lingual_thickavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_middletemporal_thickavg,L_parahippocampal_thickavg,L_paracentral_thickavg,L_parsopercularis_thickavg,L_parsorbitalis_thickavg,L_parstriangularis_thickavg,L_pericalcarine_thickavg,L_postcentral_thickavg,L_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_precentral_thickavg,L_precuneus_thickavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_superiorfrontal_thickavg,L_superiorparietal_thickavg,L_superiortemporal_thickavg,L_supramarginal_thickavg,L_frontalpole_thickavg,L_temporalpole_thickavg,L_transversetemporal_thickavg,L_insula_thickavg,R_bankssts_thickavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_cuneus_thickavg,R_entorhinal_thickavg,R_fusiform_thickavg,R_inferiorparietal_thickavg,R_inferiortemporal_thickavg,R_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,R_lateraloccipital_thickavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_lingual_thickavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_middletemporal_thickavg,R_parahippocampal_thickavg,R_paracentral_thickavg,R_parsopercularis_thickavg,R_parsorbitalis_thickavg,R_parstriangularis_thickavg,R_pericalcarine_thickavg,R_postcentral_thickavg,R_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_precentral_thickavg,R_precuneus_thickavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_superiorfrontal_thickavg,R_superiorparietal_thickavg,R_superiortemporal_thickavg,R_supramarginal_thickavg,R_frontalpole_thickavg,R_temporalpole_thickavg,R_transversetemporal_thickavg,R_insula_thickavg,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'

 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_ThickAvg.csv

echo

'SubjID,L_bankssts_surfavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_cuneus_surfavg,L_entorhinal_surfavg,L_fusiform_surfavg,L_inferiorparietal_surfavg,L_inferiortemporal_surfavg,L_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,L_lateraloccipital_surfavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_lingual_surfavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_middletemporal_surfavg,L_parahippocampal_surfavg,L_paracentral_surfavg,L_parsopercularis_surfavg,L_parsorbitalis_surfavg,L_parstriangularis_surfavg,L_pericalcarine_surfavg,L_postcentral_surfavg,L_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_precentral_surfavg,L_precuneus_surfavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_superiorfrontal_surfavg,L_superiorparietal_surfavg,L_superiortemporal_surfavg,L_supramarginal_surfavg,L_frontalpole_surfavg,L_temporalpole_surfavg,L_transversetemporal_surfavg,L_insula_surfavg,R_bankssts_surfavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_cuneus_surfavg,R_entorhinal_surfavg,R_fusiform_surfavg,R_inferiorparietal_surfavg,R_inferiortemporal_surfavg,R_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,R_lateraloccipital_surfavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_lingual_surfavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_middletemporal_surfavg,R_parahippocampal_surfavg,R_paracentral_surfavg,R_parsopercularis_surfavg,R_parsorbitalis_surfavg,R_parstriangularis_surfavg,R_pericalcarine_surfavg,R_postcentral_surfavg,R_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_precentral_surfavg,R_precuneus_surfavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_superiorfrontal_surfavg,R_superiorparietal_surfavg,R_superiortemporal_surfavg,R_supramarginal_surfavg,R_frontalpole_surfavg,R_temporalpole_surfavg,R_transversetemporal_surfavg,R_insula_surfavg,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'

 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_SurfAvg.csv



for subj_id in $(ls -d Subj*); do #may need to change this so that 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values more than 5 mm

2019-04-05 Thread Bruce Fischl
sure, you need to rerun mris_thickness with -max  where N is the 
threshold you want to use (making it big enough and nothing will get 
thresholded)


On Fri, 5 Apr 
2019, Gonzalo Rojas Costa wrote:




External Email - Use Caution

Hi:
How can I get cortical thickness surface image with values more than 5 mm?

Sincerely


Gonzalo Rojas Costa

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values more than 5 mm

2019-04-05 Thread Gonzalo Rojas Costa
External Email - Use Caution

Hi:

How can I get cortical thickness surface image with values more than 5 mm?

Sincerely


Gonzalo Rojas Costa
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness values in the insula...

2019-04-05 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
probably easiest to use matlab. see 
FREESURFER_HOME/matlab/read_annotation.m, which has an example

On 4/5/2019 11:29 AM, Gonzalo Rojas Costa wrote:
>  External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi:
>
>How can I get the different values of cortical thickness in the
> insula? Not the mean and SD...
>
>
>Sincerely
>
>
> Gonzalo Rojas Costa
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


[Freesurfer] cortical thickness values in the insula...

2019-04-05 Thread Gonzalo Rojas Costa
External Email - Use Caution

Hi:

  How can I get the different values of cortical thickness in the
insula? Not the mean and SD...


  Sincerely


Gonzalo Rojas Costa

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-03-18 Thread Giuliana Klencklen
External Email - Use Caution

THank you so much for your help!

Le lun. 18 mars 2019 à 16:32, Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. <
dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> a écrit :

> The vertices chosen for the cluster depend only on the cluster forming
> threshold (CFT). Once that is chosen, the vertices in the cluster are
> fixed. The permutation judges how likely the cluster as a whole would be
> seen by chance. There are other ways to do permutation, but this is the way
> we do it.
>
>
> On 3/18/19 11:25 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
> Ok, well then I do not understand the purpose of the permutation testing
> if the number of permutation would not change the size of the clusters.
> What is it doing if not refining what vertices are significant? Perhaps I
> am just missing a key idea.
>
> Best,
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 5:11 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. <
> dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> The size of the cluster is not going to be affected by the number of
>> iterations (only by the threshold). Why would you think that the cluster
>> size is affected by the number of iterations?
>>
>> On 3/14/19 5:45 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>> >
>> > External Email - Use Caution
>> >
>> > Hi Douglas,
>> >
>> > According to your suggestion, I used the permutation simulation
>> > approach. I chose a cluster forming threshold set at 0.05 and explored
>> > how the number of iterations effects the data. For example, I used
>> > this command for 1,000 iterations:
>> > mri_glmfit-sim \
>> >  --glmdir lh.longMRI.glmdir \
>> >  --sim perm 1000 1.3 perm.abs.13 \
>> >  --sim-sign abs\
>> >  --cwpvalthresh 0.05
>> >
>> > I did not observe any difference on the size of the cluster between
>> > 1,000 vs 5,000 vs 10,000 iterations. As I thought the results were
>> > pretty odd, I tried running the command with 5 permutations just to
>> > make sure it's not also the same and I did not find any significant
>> > clusters.
>> >
>> > Is the absence of cluster size difference between different number of
>> > iterations expected? Just wanted to make sure with you that this
>> > approach is working as it should.
>> >
>> > Thanks!
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
>> > mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>> >
>> > You can make the bonferroni correction from of mri_glmfit-sim the
>> > same as qdec by not including --2spaces (the bonferroni correction
>> > in qdec is actually 1, not 0). Also, if you want to use such a low
>> > cluster forming threshold (1.3=p<.05), then you should use
>> > permutation and not MC (MC is not valid at such low thresholds).
>> >
>> > On 2/22/19 7:49 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>> >>
>> >> External Email - Use Caution
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Douglas, that makes sense. I have run mri_glmfit-sim and
>> >> have that table file.
>> >> However, the cortical thickness values for each cluster displayed
>> >> in that table can’t be used because the clusters
>> >> (something.sig.cluster.mgh opened with tksurfer) do not match
>> >> exactly (but are very similar to) those previously generated with
>> >> QDEC. I do not understand the cause of this issue because all the
>> >> stats I used, i.e., threshold, statistical correction, level of
>> >> smooting, seem to be the same between both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim.
>> >>
>> >> I send you here a typical example of the problematic clusters, as
>> >> well as the summary for both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim. They appear
>> >> similar except for the Bonferroni correction that is set at 2 for
>> >> the mri_glmfit-sim while it is set at 0 for the qdec version? If
>> >> it is the source of the current issue, how can I configure the
>> >> Bonferroni correction? If not, do you have any idea how I can
>> >> resolve the problem?
>> >>
>> >> Many thanks in advance.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Giuliana Klencklen
>> >> QdecGroupComparison.jpg
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
>> >> mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a
>> >> lot of smoothing. It is better to do this kind of thing in
>> >> fsaverage space rather than moving the labels back to the
>> >> individual space. If you've run mri_glmfit-sim, then it
>> >> should have created a table file  (something.y.ocn.dat). This
>> >> file will have a row for each subject and a column for each
>> >> cluster. The value will be the mean for that subject in that
>> >> cluster.
>> >>
>> >> On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> External Email - Use Caution
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi FS experts,
>> >>>
>> >>> I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for
>> >>> baseline and longitudinal data. I used Qdec and 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-03-18 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
The vertices chosen for the cluster depend only on the cluster forming 
threshold (CFT). Once that is chosen, the vertices in the cluster are fixed. 
The permutation judges how likely the cluster as a whole would be seen by 
chance. There are other ways to do permutation, but this is the way we do it.

On 3/18/19 11:25 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:

External Email - Use Caution

Ok, well then I do not understand the purpose of the permutation testing if the 
number of permutation would not change the size of the clusters. What is it 
doing if not refining what vertices are significant? Perhaps I am just missing 
a key idea.

Best,


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 5:11 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 
mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
The size of the cluster is not going to be affected by the number of
iterations (only by the threshold). Why would you think that the cluster
size is affected by the number of iterations?

On 3/14/19 5:45 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi Douglas,
>
> According to your suggestion, I used the permutation simulation
> approach. I chose a cluster forming threshold set at 0.05 and explored
> how the number of iterations effects the data. For example, I used
> this command for 1,000 iterations:
> mri_glmfit-sim \
>  --glmdir lh.longMRI.glmdir \
>  --sim perm 1000 1.3 perm.abs.13 \
>  --sim-sign abs\
>  --cwpvalthresh 0.05
>
> I did not observe any difference on the size of the cluster between
> 1,000 vs 5,000 vs 10,000 iterations. As I thought the results were
> pretty odd, I tried running the command with 5 permutations just to
> make sure it's not also the same and I did not find any significant
> clusters.
>
> Is the absence of cluster size difference between different number of
> iterations expected? Just wanted to make sure with you that this
> approach is working as it should.
>
> Thanks!
> Regards,
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
> mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> 
> >> wrote:
>
> You can make the bonferroni correction from of mri_glmfit-sim the
> same as qdec by not including --2spaces (the bonferroni correction
> in qdec is actually 1, not 0). Also, if you want to use such a low
> cluster forming threshold (1.3=p<.05), then you should use
> permutation and not MC (MC is not valid at such low thresholds).
>
> On 2/22/19 7:49 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>>
>> External Email - Use Caution
>>
>> Thanks Douglas, that makes sense. I have run mri_glmfit-sim and
>> have that table file.
>> However, the cortical thickness values for each cluster displayed
>> in that table can’t be used because the clusters
>> (something.sig.cluster.mgh opened with tksurfer) do not match
>> exactly (but are very similar to) those previously generated with
>> QDEC. I do not understand the cause of this issue because all the
>> stats I used, i.e., threshold, statistical correction, level of
>> smooting, seem to be the same between both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim.
>>
>> I send you here a typical example of the problematic clusters, as
>> well as the summary for both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim. They appear
>> similar except for the Bonferroni correction that is set at 2 for
>> the mri_glmfit-sim while it is set at 0 for the qdec version? If
>> it is the source of the current issue, how can I configure the
>> Bonferroni correction? If not, do you have any idea how I can
>> resolve the problem?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Giuliana Klencklen
>> QdecGroupComparison.jpg
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
>> mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> 
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a
>> lot of smoothing. It is better to do this kind of thing in
>> fsaverage space rather than moving the labels back to the
>> individual space. If you've run mri_glmfit-sim, then it
>> should have created a table file  (something.y.ocn.dat). This
>> file will have a row for each subject and a column for each
>> cluster. The value will be the mean for that subject in that
>> cluster.
>>
>> On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>>>
>>> External Email - Use Caution
>>>
>>> Hi FS experts,
>>>
>>> I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for
>>> baseline and longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same
>>> work with the fsgd version (mri_glmfit-sim command) to
>>> double-check the data.
>>>
>>> I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters
>>> showing a significant between-group difference. Then, I used
>>> the following command stream to extract the cortical

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-03-18 Thread Giuliana Klencklen
External Email - Use Caution

Ok, well then I do not understand the purpose of the permutation testing if
the number of permutation would not change the size of the clusters. What
is it doing if not refining what vertices are significant? Perhaps I am
just missing a key idea.

Best,


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 5:11 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. <
dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:

> The size of the cluster is not going to be affected by the number of
> iterations (only by the threshold). Why would you think that the cluster
> size is affected by the number of iterations?
>
> On 3/14/19 5:45 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
> >
> > External Email - Use Caution
> >
> > Hi Douglas,
> >
> > According to your suggestion, I used the permutation simulation
> > approach. I chose a cluster forming threshold set at 0.05 and explored
> > how the number of iterations effects the data. For example, I used
> > this command for 1,000 iterations:
> > mri_glmfit-sim \
> >  --glmdir lh.longMRI.glmdir \
> >  --sim perm 1000 1.3 perm.abs.13 \
> >  --sim-sign abs\
> >  --cwpvalthresh 0.05
> >
> > I did not observe any difference on the size of the cluster between
> > 1,000 vs 5,000 vs 10,000 iterations. As I thought the results were
> > pretty odd, I tried running the command with 5 permutations just to
> > make sure it's not also the same and I did not find any significant
> > clusters.
> >
> > Is the absence of cluster size difference between different number of
> > iterations expected? Just wanted to make sure with you that this
> > approach is working as it should.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Regards,
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
> > mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
> >
> > You can make the bonferroni correction from of mri_glmfit-sim the
> > same as qdec by not including --2spaces (the bonferroni correction
> > in qdec is actually 1, not 0). Also, if you want to use such a low
> > cluster forming threshold (1.3=p<.05), then you should use
> > permutation and not MC (MC is not valid at such low thresholds).
> >
> > On 2/22/19 7:49 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
> >>
> >> External Email - Use Caution
> >>
> >> Thanks Douglas, that makes sense. I have run mri_glmfit-sim and
> >> have that table file.
> >> However, the cortical thickness values for each cluster displayed
> >> in that table can’t be used because the clusters
> >> (something.sig.cluster.mgh opened with tksurfer) do not match
> >> exactly (but are very similar to) those previously generated with
> >> QDEC. I do not understand the cause of this issue because all the
> >> stats I used, i.e., threshold, statistical correction, level of
> >> smooting, seem to be the same between both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim.
> >>
> >> I send you here a typical example of the problematic clusters, as
> >> well as the summary for both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim. They appear
> >> similar except for the Bonferroni correction that is set at 2 for
> >> the mri_glmfit-sim while it is set at 0 for the qdec version? If
> >> it is the source of the current issue, how can I configure the
> >> Bonferroni correction? If not, do you have any idea how I can
> >> resolve the problem?
> >>
> >> Many thanks in advance.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Giuliana Klencklen
> >> QdecGroupComparison.jpg
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
> >> mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
> >>
> >> This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a
> >> lot of smoothing. It is better to do this kind of thing in
> >> fsaverage space rather than moving the labels back to the
> >> individual space. If you've run mri_glmfit-sim, then it
> >> should have created a table file  (something.y.ocn.dat). This
> >> file will have a row for each subject and a column for each
> >> cluster. The value will be the mean for that subject in that
> >> cluster.
> >>
> >> On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
> >>>
> >>> External Email - Use Caution
> >>>
> >>> Hi FS experts,
> >>>
> >>> I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for
> >>> baseline and longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same
> >>> work with the fsgd version (mri_glmfit-sim command) to
> >>> double-check the data.
> >>>
> >>> I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters
> >>> showing a significant between-group difference. Then, I used
> >>> the following command stream to extract the cortical
> >>> thickness values for each subject and cluster:
> >>> mri_label2label, mris_anatomical_stats, and aparcstats2table.
> >>> E.g.,
> >>> mri_label2label --srcsubject fsaverage --srclabel
> >>>
>  

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Extraction

2019-03-18 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
They do not have any normalization applied. BTW, you should not scale the 
thickness by the ICV

On 3/18/19 10:24 AM, Bunting, Emma wrote:

External Email - Use Caution
Hi Freesurfer experts,

I used a script created by ENIGMA to extract the cortical thickness values for 
129 subjects that had undergone reconall processing.


We are using these values in VBM analysis. From reading other papers, we notice 
that all regional volumes are usually normalised by dividing by total 
intracranial volumes for each subject.



I’m just wondering whether the values we are extracting from our freesurfer 
output files have already had this normalisation applied?

The script we’ve used as follows:


#!/bin/bash

echo 
'SubjID,L_bankssts_thickavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_cuneus_thickavg,L_entorhinal_thickavg,L_fusiform_thickavg,L_inferiorparietal_thickavg,L_inferiortemporal_thickavg,L_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,L_lateraloccipital_thickavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_lingual_thickavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_middletemporal_thickavg,L_parahippocampal_thickavg,L_paracentral_thickavg,L_parsopercularis_thickavg,L_parsorbitalis_thickavg,L_parstriangularis_thickavg,L_pericalcarine_thickavg,L_postcentral_thickavg,L_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_precentral_thickavg,L_precuneus_thickavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_superiorfrontal_thickavg,L_superiorparietal_thickavg,L_superiortemporal_thickavg,L_supramarginal_thickavg,L_frontalpole_thickavg,L_temporalpole_thickavg,L_transversetemporal_thickavg,L_insula_thickavg,R_bankssts_thickavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_cuneus_thickavg,R_entorhinal_thickavg,R_fusiform_thickavg,R_inferiorparietal_thickavg,R_inferiortemporal_thickavg,R_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,R_lateraloccipital_thickavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_lingual_thickavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_middletemporal_thickavg,R_parahippocampal_thickavg,R_paracentral_thickavg,R_parsopercularis_thickavg,R_parsorbitalis_thickavg,R_parstriangularis_thickavg,R_pericalcarine_thickavg,R_postcentral_thickavg,R_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_precentral_thickavg,R_precuneus_thickavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_superiorfrontal_thickavg,R_superiorparietal_thickavg,R_superiortemporal_thickavg,R_supramarginal_thickavg,R_frontalpole_thickavg,R_temporalpole_thickavg,R_transversetemporal_thickavg,R_insula_thickavg,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'
 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_ThickAvg.csv
echo 
'SubjID,L_bankssts_surfavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_cuneus_surfavg,L_entorhinal_surfavg,L_fusiform_surfavg,L_inferiorparietal_surfavg,L_inferiortemporal_surfavg,L_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,L_lateraloccipital_surfavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_lingual_surfavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_middletemporal_surfavg,L_parahippocampal_surfavg,L_paracentral_surfavg,L_parsopercularis_surfavg,L_parsorbitalis_surfavg,L_parstriangularis_surfavg,L_pericalcarine_surfavg,L_postcentral_surfavg,L_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_precentral_surfavg,L_precuneus_surfavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_superiorfrontal_surfavg,L_superiorparietal_surfavg,L_superiortemporal_surfavg,L_supramarginal_surfavg,L_frontalpole_surfavg,L_temporalpole_surfavg,L_transversetemporal_surfavg,L_insula_surfavg,R_bankssts_surfavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_cuneus_surfavg,R_entorhinal_surfavg,R_fusiform_surfavg,R_inferiorparietal_surfavg,R_inferiortemporal_surfavg,R_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,R_lateraloccipital_surfavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_lingual_surfavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_middletemporal_surfavg,R_parahippocampal_surfavg,R_paracentral_surfavg,R_parsopercularis_surfavg,R_parsorbitalis_surfavg,R_parstriangularis_surfavg,R_pericalcarine_surfavg,R_postcentral_surfavg,R_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_precentral_surfavg,R_precuneus_surfavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_superiorfrontal_surfavg,R_superiorparietal_surfavg,R_superiortemporal_surfavg,R_supramarginal_surfavg,R_frontalpole_surfavg,R_temporalpole_surfavg,R_transversetemporal_surfavg,R_insula_surfavg,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'
 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_SurfAvg.csv

for subj_id in $(ls -d Subj*); do #may need to change this so that it selects 
subjects with FS output

printf "%s,"  "${subj_id}" >> CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_ThickAvg.csv
printf "%s,"  "${subj_id}" >> CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_SurfAvg.csv

for side in lh.aparc.stats rh.aparc.stats; do

for x in bankssts caudalanteriorcingulate caudalmiddlefrontal cuneus entorhinal 
fusiform inferiorparietal inferiortemporal isthmuscingulate lateraloccipital 
lateralorbitofrontal lingual medialorbitofrontal middletemporal parahippocampal 
paracentral parsopercularis parsorbitalis parstriangularis pericalcarine 

[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Extraction

2019-03-18 Thread Bunting, Emma
External Email - Use Caution

Hi Freesurfer experts,

I used a script created by ENIGMA to extract the cortical thickness values for 
129 subjects that had undergone reconall processing.


We are using these values in VBM analysis. From reading other papers, we notice 
that all regional volumes are usually normalised by dividing by total 
intracranial volumes for each subject.



I’m just wondering whether the values we are extracting from our freesurfer 
output files have already had this normalisation applied?

The script we’ve used as follows:


#!/bin/bash

echo 
'SubjID,L_bankssts_thickavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_cuneus_thickavg,L_entorhinal_thickavg,L_fusiform_thickavg,L_inferiorparietal_thickavg,L_inferiortemporal_thickavg,L_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,L_lateraloccipital_thickavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_lingual_thickavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,L_middletemporal_thickavg,L_parahippocampal_thickavg,L_paracentral_thickavg,L_parsopercularis_thickavg,L_parsorbitalis_thickavg,L_parstriangularis_thickavg,L_pericalcarine_thickavg,L_postcentral_thickavg,L_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_precentral_thickavg,L_precuneus_thickavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,L_superiorfrontal_thickavg,L_superiorparietal_thickavg,L_superiortemporal_thickavg,L_supramarginal_thickavg,L_frontalpole_thickavg,L_temporalpole_thickavg,L_transversetemporal_thickavg,L_insula_thickavg,R_bankssts_thickavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_cuneus_thickavg,R_entorhinal_thickavg,R_fusiform_thickavg,R_inferiorparietal_thickavg,R_inferiortemporal_thickavg,R_isthmuscingulate_thickavg,R_lateraloccipital_thickavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_lingual_thickavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_thickavg,R_middletemporal_thickavg,R_parahippocampal_thickavg,R_paracentral_thickavg,R_parsopercularis_thickavg,R_parsorbitalis_thickavg,R_parstriangularis_thickavg,R_pericalcarine_thickavg,R_postcentral_thickavg,R_posteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_precentral_thickavg,R_precuneus_thickavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_thickavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_thickavg,R_superiorfrontal_thickavg,R_superiorparietal_thickavg,R_superiortemporal_thickavg,R_supramarginal_thickavg,R_frontalpole_thickavg,R_temporalpole_thickavg,R_transversetemporal_thickavg,R_insula_thickavg,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'
 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_ThickAvg.csv
echo 
'SubjID,L_bankssts_surfavg,L_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_cuneus_surfavg,L_entorhinal_surfavg,L_fusiform_surfavg,L_inferiorparietal_surfavg,L_inferiortemporal_surfavg,L_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,L_lateraloccipital_surfavg,L_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_lingual_surfavg,L_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,L_middletemporal_surfavg,L_parahippocampal_surfavg,L_paracentral_surfavg,L_parsopercularis_surfavg,L_parsorbitalis_surfavg,L_parstriangularis_surfavg,L_pericalcarine_surfavg,L_postcentral_surfavg,L_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_precentral_surfavg,L_precuneus_surfavg,L_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,L_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,L_superiorfrontal_surfavg,L_superiorparietal_surfavg,L_superiortemporal_surfavg,L_supramarginal_surfavg,L_frontalpole_surfavg,L_temporalpole_surfavg,L_transversetemporal_surfavg,L_insula_surfavg,R_bankssts_surfavg,R_caudalanteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_caudalmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_cuneus_surfavg,R_entorhinal_surfavg,R_fusiform_surfavg,R_inferiorparietal_surfavg,R_inferiortemporal_surfavg,R_isthmuscingulate_surfavg,R_lateraloccipital_surfavg,R_lateralorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_lingual_surfavg,R_medialorbitofrontal_surfavg,R_middletemporal_surfavg,R_parahippocampal_surfavg,R_paracentral_surfavg,R_parsopercularis_surfavg,R_parsorbitalis_surfavg,R_parstriangularis_surfavg,R_pericalcarine_surfavg,R_postcentral_surfavg,R_posteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_precentral_surfavg,R_precuneus_surfavg,R_rostralanteriorcingulate_surfavg,R_rostralmiddlefrontal_surfavg,R_superiorfrontal_surfavg,R_superiorparietal_surfavg,R_superiortemporal_surfavg,R_supramarginal_surfavg,R_frontalpole_surfavg,R_temporalpole_surfavg,R_transversetemporal_surfavg,R_insula_surfavg,LThickness,RThickness,LSurfArea,RSurfArea,ICV'
 > CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_SurfAvg.csv

for subj_id in $(ls -d Subj*); do #may need to change this so that it selects 
subjects with FS output

printf "%s,"  "${subj_id}" >> CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_ThickAvg.csv
printf "%s,"  "${subj_id}" >> CorticalMeasuresENIGMA_SurfAvg.csv

for side in lh.aparc.stats rh.aparc.stats; do

for x in bankssts caudalanteriorcingulate caudalmiddlefrontal cuneus entorhinal 
fusiform inferiorparietal inferiortemporal isthmuscingulate lateraloccipital 
lateralorbitofrontal lingual medialorbitofrontal middletemporal parahippocampal 
paracentral parsopercularis parsorbitalis parstriangularis pericalcarine 
postcentral posteriorcingulate precentral precuneus rostralanteriorcingulate 
rostralmiddlefrontal superiorfrontal superiorparietal 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-03-14 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
The size of the cluster is not going to be affected by the number of 
iterations (only by the threshold). Why would you think that the cluster 
size is affected by the number of iterations?

On 3/14/19 5:45 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi Douglas,
>
> According to your suggestion, I used the permutation simulation 
> approach. I chose a cluster forming threshold set at 0.05 and explored 
> how the number of iterations effects the data. For example, I used 
> this command for 1,000 iterations:
> mri_glmfit-sim \
>  --glmdir lh.longMRI.glmdir \
>  --sim perm 1000 1.3 perm.abs.13 \
>  --sim-sign abs\
>  --cwpvalthresh 0.05
>
> I did not observe any difference on the size of the cluster between 
> 1,000 vs 5,000 vs 10,000 iterations. As I thought the results were 
> pretty odd, I tried running the command with 5 permutations just to 
> make sure it's not also the same and I did not find any significant 
> clusters.
>
> Is the absence of cluster size difference between different number of 
> iterations expected? Just wanted to make sure with you that this 
> approach is working as it should.
>
> Thanks!
> Regards,
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 
> mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>
> You can make the bonferroni correction from of mri_glmfit-sim the
> same as qdec by not including --2spaces (the bonferroni correction
> in qdec is actually 1, not 0). Also, if you want to use such a low
> cluster forming threshold (1.3=p<.05), then you should use
> permutation and not MC (MC is not valid at such low thresholds).
>
> On 2/22/19 7:49 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>>
>> External Email - Use Caution
>>
>> Thanks Douglas, that makes sense. I have run mri_glmfit-sim and
>> have that table file.
>> However, the cortical thickness values for each cluster displayed
>> in that table can’t be used because the clusters
>> (something.sig.cluster.mgh opened with tksurfer) do not match
>> exactly (but are very similar to) those previously generated with
>> QDEC. I do not understand the cause of this issue because all the
>> stats I used, i.e., threshold, statistical correction, level of
>> smooting, seem to be the same between both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim.
>>
>> I send you here a typical example of the problematic clusters, as
>> well as the summary for both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim. They appear
>> similar except for the Bonferroni correction that is set at 2 for
>> the mri_glmfit-sim while it is set at 0 for the qdec version? If
>> it is the source of the current issue, how can I configure the
>> Bonferroni correction? If not, do you have any idea how I can
>> resolve the problem?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Giuliana Klencklen
>> QdecGroupComparison.jpg
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
>> mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a
>> lot of smoothing. It is better to do this kind of thing in
>> fsaverage space rather than moving the labels back to the
>> individual space. If you've run mri_glmfit-sim, then it
>> should have created a table file  (something.y.ocn.dat). This
>> file will have a row for each subject and a column for each
>> cluster. The value will be the mean for that subject in that
>> cluster.
>>
>> On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>>>
>>> External Email - Use Caution
>>>
>>> Hi FS experts,
>>>
>>> I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for
>>> baseline and longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same
>>> work with the fsgd version (mri_glmfit-sim command) to
>>> double-check the data.
>>>
>>> I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters
>>> showing a significant between-group difference. Then, I used
>>> the following command stream to extract the cortical
>>> thickness values for each subject and cluster:
>>> mri_label2label, mris_anatomical_stats, and aparcstats2table.
>>> E.g.,
>>> mri_label2label --srcsubject fsaverage --srclabel
>>> 
>>> /home/jagust/gklenck/Long_MRI/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label
>>> --trgsubject ${s}_tp1 --trglabel
>>> ${s}_tp1/label/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label
>>> --hemi lh --regmethod surface
>>>
>>> mris_anatomical_stats -l
>>> lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label -t lh.thickness -b
>>> -f ${s}_tp1/stats/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.stats
>>> ${s}_tp1 lh
>>>
>>> aparcstats2table --subjects ${s}_tp1 --hemi lh --parc
>>> ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal --meas thickness
>>> --tablefile
>>> 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-03-14 Thread Giuliana Klencklen
External Email - Use Caution

 Hi Douglas,

According to your suggestion, I used the permutation simulation approach. I
chose a cluster forming threshold set at 0.05 and explored how the number
of iterations effects the data. For example, I used this command for 1,000
iterations:
mri_glmfit-sim \
 --glmdir lh.longMRI.glmdir \
 --sim perm 1000 1.3 perm.abs.13 \
 --sim-sign abs\
 --cwpvalthresh 0.05

I did not observe any difference on the size of the cluster between 1,000
vs 5,000 vs 10,000 iterations. As I thought the results were pretty odd, I
tried running the command with 5 permutations just to make sure it's not
also the same and I did not find any significant clusters.

Is the absence of cluster size difference between different number of
iterations expected? Just wanted to make sure with you that this approach
is working as it should.

Thanks!
Regards,

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 6:50 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. <
dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:

> You can make the bonferroni correction from of mri_glmfit-sim the same as
> qdec by not including --2spaces (the bonferroni correction in qdec is
> actually 1, not 0). Also, if you want to use such a low cluster forming
> threshold (1.3=p<.05), then you should use permutation and not MC (MC is
> not valid at such low thresholds).
>
> On 2/22/19 7:49 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
> Thanks Douglas, that makes sense. I have run mri_glmfit-sim and have that
> table file.
> However, the cortical thickness values for each cluster displayed in that
> table can’t be used because the clusters (something.sig.cluster.mgh opened
> with tksurfer) do not match exactly (but are very similar to) those
> previously generated with QDEC. I do not understand the cause of this issue
> because all the stats I used, i.e., threshold, statistical correction,
> level of smooting, seem to be the same between both qdec and
> mri_glmfit-sim.
>
> I send you here a typical example of the problematic clusters, as well as
> the summary for both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim. They appear similar except
> for the Bonferroni correction that is set at 2 for the mri_glmfit-sim while
> it is set at 0 for the qdec version? If it is the source of the current
> issue, how can I configure the Bonferroni correction? If not, do you have
> any idea how I can resolve the problem?
>
> Many thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Giuliana Klencklen
> [image: QdecGroupComparison.jpg]
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. <
> dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>> This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a lot of
>> smoothing. It is better to do this kind of thing in fsaverage space rather
>> than moving the labels back to the individual space. If you've run
>> mri_glmfit-sim, then it should have created a table file
>> (something.y.ocn.dat). This file will have a row for each subject and a
>> column for each cluster. The value will be the mean for that subject in
>> that cluster.
>>
>> On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:
>>
>> External Email - Use Caution
>> Hi FS experts,
>>
>> I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for baseline and
>> longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same work with the fsgd version
>> (mri_glmfit-sim command) to double-check the data.
>>
>> I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters showing a
>> significant between-group difference. Then, I used the following command
>> stream to extract the cortical thickness values for each subject and
>> cluster: mri_label2label, mris_anatomical_stats, and aparcstats2table.
>> E.g.,
>> mri_label2label --srcsubject fsaverage --srclabel
>> /home/jagust/gklenck/Long_MRI/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label
>> --trgsubject ${s}_tp1 --trglabel
>> ${s}_tp1/label/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label --hemi lh
>> --regmethod surface
>>
>> mris_anatomical_stats -l lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label -t
>> lh.thickness -b -f ${s}_tp1/stats/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.stats
>> ${s}_tp1 lh
>>
>> aparcstats2table --subjects ${s}_tp1 --hemi lh --parc
>> ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal --meas thickness --tablefile
>> ${out_dir}/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.aparc_stats.txt
>>
>> Subsequently, when I conducted between-group comparisons for each
>> cluster, a couple of clusters (7 out of 16) do not show a significant
>> difference - which does not make sense. This problem seems to appear
>> randomly.
>>
>> Help to the FS archives, I tried to use mri_segstats command but was not
>> able to find a correct combination of arguments. If this is the right track
>> to solve this problem, what combination of arguments should I use? And if
>> this is not, do you have any idea how I can solve this problem?
>>
>> Many thanks in advance.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Giuliana
>>
>>
>> --
>> Giuliana Klencklen, Ph.D.
>>
>> Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> 118 Barker Hall
>> Berkeley, 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-02-22 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
You can make the bonferroni correction from of mri_glmfit-sim the same as qdec 
by not including --2spaces (the bonferroni correction in qdec is actually 1, 
not 0). Also, if you want to use such a low cluster forming threshold 
(1.3=p<.05), then you should use permutation and not MC (MC is not valid at 
such low thresholds).

On 2/22/19 7:49 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:

External Email - Use Caution

Thanks Douglas, that makes sense. I have run mri_glmfit-sim and have that table 
file.
However, the cortical thickness values for each cluster displayed in that table 
can’t be used because the clusters (something.sig.cluster.mgh opened with 
tksurfer) do not match exactly (but are very similar to) those previously 
generated with QDEC. I do not understand the cause of this issue because all 
the stats I used, i.e., threshold, statistical correction, level of smooting, 
seem to be the same between both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim.

I send you here a typical example of the problematic clusters, as well as the 
summary for both qdec and mri_glmfit-sim. They appear similar except for the 
Bonferroni correction that is set at 2 for the mri_glmfit-sim while it is set 
at 0 for the qdec version? If it is the source of the current issue, how can I 
configure the Bonferroni correction? If not, do you have any idea how I can 
resolve the problem?

Many thanks in advance.

Regards,
Giuliana Klencklen
[QdecGroupComparison.jpg]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 
mailto:dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a lot of smoothing. It 
is better to do this kind of thing in fsaverage space rather than moving the 
labels back to the individual space. If you've run mri_glmfit-sim, then it 
should have created a table file  (something.y.ocn.dat). This file will have a 
row for each subject and a column for each cluster. The value will be the mean 
for that subject in that cluster.

On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:

External Email - Use Caution

Hi FS experts,

I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for baseline and 
longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same work with the fsgd version 
(mri_glmfit-sim command) to double-check the data.

I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters showing a 
significant between-group difference. Then, I used the following command stream 
to extract the cortical thickness values for each subject and cluster: 
mri_label2label, mris_anatomical_stats, and aparcstats2table.
E.g.,
mri_label2label --srcsubject fsaverage --srclabel 
/home/jagust/gklenck/Long_MRI/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label 
--trgsubject ${s}_tp1 --trglabel 
${s}_tp1/label/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label --hemi lh --regmethod 
surface

mris_anatomical_stats -l lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label -t 
lh.thickness -b -f ${s}_tp1/stats/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.stats 
${s}_tp1 lh

aparcstats2table --subjects ${s}_tp1 --hemi lh --parc 
ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal --meas thickness --tablefile 
${out_dir}/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.aparc_stats.txt

Subsequently, when I conducted between-group comparisons for each cluster, a 
couple of clusters (7 out of 16) do not show a significant difference - which 
does not make sense. This problem seems to appear randomly.

Help to the FS archives, I tried to use mri_segstats command but was not able 
to find a correct combination of arguments. If this is the right track to solve 
this problem, what combination of arguments should I use? And if this is not, 
do you have any idea how I can solve this problem?

Many thanks in advance.

Regards,
Giuliana


--
Giuliana Klencklen, Ph.D.

Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute
University of California, Berkeley
118 Barker Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3190
510-395-0040
giuliana.klenck...@berkeley.edu



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


--
Giuliana Klencklen, Ph.D.

Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute
University of California, Berkeley
118 Barker Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3190
510-395-0040
giuliana.klenck...@berkeley.edu



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-02-15 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
This can happen if the label is small and/or you've used a lot of smoothing. It 
is better to do this kind of thing in fsaverage space rather than moving the 
labels back to the individual space. If you've run mri_glmfit-sim, then it 
should have created a table file  (something.y.ocn.dat). This file will have a 
row for each subject and a column for each cluster. The value will be the mean 
for that subject in that cluster.

On 2/15/19 6:23 AM, Giuliana Klencklen wrote:

External Email - Use Caution

Hi FS experts,

I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for baseline and 
longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same work with the fsgd version 
(mri_glmfit-sim command) to double-check the data.

I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters showing a 
significant between-group difference. Then, I used the following command stream 
to extract the cortical thickness values for each subject and cluster: 
mri_label2label, mris_anatomical_stats, and aparcstats2table.
E.g.,
mri_label2label --srcsubject fsaverage --srclabel 
/home/jagust/gklenck/Long_MRI/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label 
--trgsubject ${s}_tp1 --trglabel 
${s}_tp1/label/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label --hemi lh --regmethod 
surface

mris_anatomical_stats -l lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label -t 
lh.thickness -b -f ${s}_tp1/stats/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.stats 
${s}_tp1 lh

aparcstats2table --subjects ${s}_tp1 --hemi lh --parc 
ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal --meas thickness --tablefile 
${out_dir}/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.aparc_stats.txt

Subsequently, when I conducted between-group comparisons for each cluster, a 
couple of clusters (7 out of 16) do not show a significant difference - which 
does not make sense. This problem seems to appear randomly.

Help to the FS archives, I tried to use mri_segstats command but was not able 
to find a correct combination of arguments. If this is the right track to solve 
this problem, what combination of arguments should I use? And if this is not, 
do you have any idea how I can solve this problem?

Many thanks in advance.

Regards,
Giuliana


--
Giuliana Klencklen, Ph.D.

Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute
University of California, Berkeley
118 Barker Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3190
510-395-0040
giuliana.klenck...@berkeley.edu



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness values extraction issue

2019-02-15 Thread Giuliana Klencklen
External Email - Use Caution

Hi FS experts,

I did group-level, surface-based, vertex-wise analysis for baseline and
longitudinal data. I used Qdec and do the same work with the fsgd version
(mri_glmfit-sim command) to double-check the data.

I created label files with tksurfer for each of the clusters showing a
significant between-group difference. Then, I used the following command
stream to extract the cortical thickness values for each subject and
cluster: mri_label2label, mris_anatomical_stats, and aparcstats2table.
E.g.,
mri_label2label --srcsubject fsaverage --srclabel
/home/jagust/gklenck/Long_MRI/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label
--trgsubject ${s}_tp1 --trglabel
${s}_tp1/label/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label --hemi lh
--regmethod surface

mris_anatomical_stats -l lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.label -t
lh.thickness -b -f ${s}_tp1/stats/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.stats
${s}_tp1 lh

aparcstats2table --subjects ${s}_tp1 --hemi lh --parc
ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal --meas thickness --tablefile
${out_dir}/lh.ac-baseline-rostralmiddlefrontal.aparc_stats.txt

Subsequently, when I conducted between-group comparisons for each cluster,
a couple of clusters (7 out of 16) do not show a significant difference -
which does not make sense. This problem seems to appear randomly.

Help to the FS archives, I tried to use mri_segstats command but was not
able to find a correct combination of arguments. If this is the right track
to solve this problem, what combination of arguments should I use? And if
this is not, do you have any idea how I can solve this problem?

Many thanks in advance.

Regards,
Giuliana


-- 
Giuliana Klencklen, Ph.D.

Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute
University of California, Berkeley
118 Barker Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-3190
510-395-0040
giuliana.klenck...@berkeley.edu
___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness calculation based on hammersmith segmentation

2019-01-28 Thread Boris Rauchmann
External Email - Use Caution

Hi Bruce,

thank you for your quick answer. I managed it now to create cannot files based 
on the atlas volumetric segmentations.

I first created:

mri_vol2surf —src  .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii --out 
.../Hammers_AVG.nii --out_type mgh --hemi lh --mni152reg

then applied:

mris_apply_reg --src .../hammers_lh_avg_surf.mgh --trg 
.../hammers_lh_INDI_0021.mgh --streg $SUBJECTS_DIR/fsaverage/surf/lh.sphere.reg 
 .../0021/surf/lh.sphere 

and:

mris_seg2annot --seg /.../hammers_lh_INDI_0021.mgh   --s 0021 --h lh --ctab 
/.../ExploreDTI_Pcode/Source/Misc/My_FS_LUT.txt  --o 
.../lh.hammersmithINDI.annot

My question now is how can I create a suitable LUT with the correct labels for 
the cortical parcellations? I have only a .csv file with the labels for the 
volumetric atlas? 

My goal is to use 

mris_anatomical_stats -a .../0021/label/lh.hammersmithINDI.annot -b 0021 lh

to get the cortical thickness values of each segment in the annot for every 
participant file.

Thanks again, 
Boris




> Am 27.01.2019 um 23:58 schrieb Bruce Fischl :
> 
> Hi Boris
> 
> vol2surf samples a scalar overlay in the volume to be a scalar overlay on the 
> surface. This is NOT the same as a surface itself - it contains no geometry 
> or topology information. Try giving freeview a surface (which I guess you 
> have for subject 0021). Something like
> 
> freeview -f \
> 0021/surf/lh.inflated:overlay=lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh
> 
> cheers
> Bruce
> 
> 
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, Boris Rauchmann wrote:
> 
>> External Email - Use Caution
>> Hi,
>> I used the following commands:
>>  mri_vol2surf —src  .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii  --out 
>> lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh
>> --out_type mgh --hemi lh --regheader 0021
>> srcvol = .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii
>> srcreg unspecified
>> srcregold = 0
>> srcwarp unspecified
>> surf = white
>> hemi = lh
>> reshape = 0
>> interp = nearest
>> float2int = round
>> GetProjMax = 0
>> INFO: float2int code = 0
>> Done loading volume
>> Computing registration from header.
>>   Using .../0021/mri/orig.mgz as target reference.
>> Reading surface .../0021/surf/lh.white
>> Done reading source surface
>> Mapping Source Volume onto Source Subject Surface
>>  1 0 0 0
>> using old
>> Done mapping volume to surface
>> Number of source voxels hit = 76207
>> Writing to lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh
>> Dim: 125545 1 1
>> it creates the .mgh file but when I try to open in in Freeview or tksurfer 
>> to check the surface file I get the
>> following error message:
>> my_computer$ freeview
>> ERROR: MRISread: file ‚/.../lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh' has 0 
>> vertices!
>> Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!
>> nquads=65537,  nvertices=0
>> ERROR: MRISread: file , /…/lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh' has 
>> many more faces than vertices!
>> Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: 
>> 
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation Violation, 
>> probably memory access out of range
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Try option -start_in_debugger or -on_error_attach_debugger
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: or see 
>> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/troubleshooting.html#Signal[0]PETSC
>> ERROR: or try http://valgrind.org on linux or man libgmalloc on Apple to 
>> find memory corruption errors
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: configure using --with-debugging=yes, recompile, link, and 
>> run 
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: to get more information on the crash.
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: - Error Message 
>> 
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Signal received!
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: 
>> 
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Petsc Release Version 2.3.3, Patch 13, Thu May 15 17:29:26 
>> CDT 2008 HG revision:
>> 4466c6289a0922df26e20626fd4a0b4dd03c8124
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/changes/index.html for recent updates.
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/faq.html for hints about trouble shooting.
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/index.html for manual pages.
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: 
>> 
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Unknown Name on a darwin12. named my_computer.local by boris 
>> Sun Jan 27 23:12:45 2019
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Libraries linked from
>> /usr/pubsw/packages/petsc/2.3.3-p13-64b/src/petsc-2.3.3-p13/lib/darwin12.2.0-c-opt
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Configure run at Mon Dec 17 15:29:35 2012
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: Configure options --with-debugging=no --with-cc=gcc 
>> --with-fc=0 --download-f-blas-lapack=0
>> --download-mpich=1 --with-mpi=1 --with-x=0 --with-gnu-copyright-code=0 
>> --with-shared=0 COPTFLAGS=-O3
>> CXXOPTFLAGS=-O3 FOPTFLAGS=-O3
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: 
>> 
>> [0]PETSC ERROR: User 

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness calculation based on hammersmith segmentation

2019-01-27 Thread Bruce Fischl

Hi Boris

vol2surf samples a scalar overlay in the volume to be a scalar overlay on 
the surface. This is NOT the same as a surface itself - it contains no 
geometry or topology information. Try giving freeview a surface (which I 
guess you have for subject 0021). Something like


freeview -f \
0021/surf/lh.inflated:overlay=lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh

cheers
Bruce


On 
Sun, 27 Jan 2019, Boris 
Rauchmann wrote:




External Email - Use Caution

Hi,
I used the following commands:

 mri_vol2surf —src  .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii  --out 
lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh
--out_type mgh --hemi lh --regheader 0021
srcvol = .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii
srcreg unspecified
srcregold = 0
srcwarp unspecified
surf = white
hemi = lh
reshape = 0
interp = nearest
float2int = round
GetProjMax = 0
INFO: float2int code = 0
Done loading volume
Computing registration from header.
  Using .../0021/mri/orig.mgz as target reference.
Reading surface .../0021/surf/lh.white
Done reading source surface
Mapping Source Volume onto Source Subject Surface
 1 0 0 0
using old
Done mapping volume to surface
Number of source voxels hit = 76207
Writing to lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh
Dim: 125545 1 1


it creates the .mgh file but when I try to open in in Freeview or tksurfer to 
check the surface file I get the
following error message:


my_computer$ freeview
ERROR: MRISread: file ‚/.../lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh' has 0 
vertices!
Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!


nquads=65537,  nvertices=0
ERROR: MRISread: file , /…/lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh' has many 
more faces than vertices!
Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!

[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation Violation, probably 
memory access out of range
[0]PETSC ERROR: Try option -start_in_debugger or -on_error_attach_debugger
[0]PETSC ERROR: or see 
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/troubleshooting.html#Signal[0]PETSC
ERROR: or try http://valgrind.org on linux or man libgmalloc on Apple to find 
memory corruption errors
[0]PETSC ERROR: configure using --with-debugging=yes, recompile, link, and run 
[0]PETSC ERROR: to get more information on the crash.
[0]PETSC ERROR: - Error Message 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Signal received!
[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Petsc Release Version 2.3.3, Patch 13, Thu May 15 17:29:26 CDT 
2008 HG revision:
4466c6289a0922df26e20626fd4a0b4dd03c8124
[0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/changes/index.html for recent updates.
[0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/faq.html for hints about trouble shooting.
[0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/index.html for manual pages.
[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Unknown Name on a darwin12. named my_computer.local by boris 
Sun Jan 27 23:12:45 2019
[0]PETSC ERROR: Libraries linked from
/usr/pubsw/packages/petsc/2.3.3-p13-64b/src/petsc-2.3.3-p13/lib/darwin12.2.0-c-opt
[0]PETSC ERROR: Configure run at Mon Dec 17 15:29:35 2012
[0]PETSC ERROR: Configure options --with-debugging=no --with-cc=gcc --with-fc=0 
--download-f-blas-lapack=0
--download-mpich=1 --with-mpi=1 --with-x=0 --with-gnu-copyright-code=0 
--with-shared=0 COPTFLAGS=-O3
CXXOPTFLAGS=-O3 FOPTFLAGS=-O3
[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: User provided function() line 0 in unknown directory unknown 
file
[unset]: aborting job:
application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, 59) - process 0
Segmentation fault


Hoe can I actually check the surface file?

Thanks,
Boris 

  Am 25.01.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 
:

Those are the commands. Can you send the command lines you used and a fuller 
description of exactly how it is
not working?

On 1/25/19 10:56 AM, Boris Rauchmann wrote:

  External Email - Use Caution

  Dear FreeSurfer Developers,

   

I´m trying to extract the cortical thickness of individuals from a study cohort 
based on an
hammersmith n30r83 atlas segmentation. I have this atlas only in as a 
volumetric file. I already run
recon-all on all subjects. I tried mri_vol2surf and then mris_seg2annot but 
without success so far.
What commands would you recommend me to run?

 

Thanks,

Boris


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness calculation based on hammersmith segmentation

2019-01-27 Thread Boris Rauchmann
External Email - Use Caution

Hi,

I used the following commands:

 mri_vol2surf —src  .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii  --out 
lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh --out_type mgh --hemi lh --regheader 
0021
srcvol = .../Hammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5.nii
srcreg unspecified
srcregold = 0
srcwarp unspecified
surf = white
hemi = lh
reshape = 0
interp = nearest
float2int = round
GetProjMax = 0
INFO: float2int code = 0
Done loading volume
Computing registration from header.
  Using .../0021/mri/orig.mgz as target reference.
Reading surface .../0021/surf/lh.white
Done reading source surface
Mapping Source Volume onto Source Subject Surface
 1 0 0 0
using old
Done mapping volume to surface
Number of source voxels hit = 76207
Writing to lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh
Dim: 125545 1 1


it creates the .mgh file but when I try to open in in Freeview or tksurfer to 
check the surface file I get the following error message:


my_computer$ freeview
ERROR: MRISread: file ‚/.../lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh' has 0 
vertices!
Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!


nquads=65537,  nvertices=0
ERROR: MRISread: file , /…/lhHammers_mith_atlas_n30r83_SPM5surf.mgh' has many 
more faces than vertices!
Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!

[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Caught signal number 11 SEGV: Segmentation Violation, probably 
memory access out of range
[0]PETSC ERROR: Try option -start_in_debugger or -on_error_attach_debugger
[0]PETSC ERROR: or see 
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/petsc/petsc-as/documentation/troubleshooting.html#Signal[0]PETSC
 ERROR: or try http://valgrind.org on linux or man libgmalloc on Apple to find 
memory corruption errors
[0]PETSC ERROR: configure using --with-debugging=yes, recompile, link, and run 
[0]PETSC ERROR: to get more information on the crash.
[0]PETSC ERROR: - Error Message 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Signal received!
[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Petsc Release Version 2.3.3, Patch 13, Thu May 15 17:29:26 CDT 
2008 HG revision: 4466c6289a0922df26e20626fd4a0b4dd03c8124
[0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/changes/index.html for recent updates.
[0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/faq.html for hints about trouble shooting.
[0]PETSC ERROR: See docs/index.html for manual pages.
[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: Unknown Name on a darwin12. named my_computer.local by boris 
Sun Jan 27 23:12:45 2019
[0]PETSC ERROR: Libraries linked from 
/usr/pubsw/packages/petsc/2.3.3-p13-64b/src/petsc-2.3.3-p13/lib/darwin12.2.0-c-opt
[0]PETSC ERROR: Configure run at Mon Dec 17 15:29:35 2012
[0]PETSC ERROR: Configure options --with-debugging=no --with-cc=gcc --with-fc=0 
--download-f-blas-lapack=0 --download-mpich=1 --with-mpi=1 --with-x=0 
--with-gnu-copyright-code=0 --with-shared=0 COPTFLAGS=-O3 CXXOPTFLAGS=-O3 
FOPTFLAGS=-O3
[0]PETSC ERROR: 

[0]PETSC ERROR: User provided function() line 0 in unknown directory unknown 
file
[unset]: aborting job:
application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, 59) - process 0
Segmentation fault


Hoe can I actually check the surface file?

Thanks,
Boris 

> Am 25.01.2019 um 17:45 schrieb Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D. 
> :
> 
> Those are the commands. Can you send the command lines you used and a fuller 
> description of exactly how it is not working?
> 
> On 1/25/19 10:56 AM, Boris Rauchmann wrote:
>> External Email - Use Caution
>> 
>>  <>Dear FreeSurfer Developers,
>> 
>>  
>> I´m trying to extract the cortical thickness of individuals from a study 
>> cohort based on an hammersmith n30r83 atlas segmentation. I have this atlas 
>> only in as a volumetric file. I already run recon-all on all subjects. I 
>> tried mri_vol2surf and then mris_seg2annot but without success so far. What 
>> commands would you recommend me to run?
>> 
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Boris
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Freesurfer mailing list
>> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
>> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer 
>> 
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness calculation based on hammersmith segmentation

2019-01-25 Thread Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D.
Those are the commands. Can you send the command lines you used and a fuller 
description of exactly how it is not working?

On 1/25/19 10:56 AM, Boris Rauchmann wrote:

External Email - Use Caution
Dear FreeSurfer Developers,

I´m trying to extract the cortical thickness of individuals from a study cohort 
based on an hammersmith n30r83 atlas segmentation. I have this atlas only in as 
a volumetric file. I already run recon-all on all subjects. I tried 
mri_vol2surf and then mris_seg2annot but without success so far. What commands 
would you recommend me to run?

Thanks,
Boris



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

[Freesurfer] cortical thickness calculation based on hammersmith segmentation

2019-01-25 Thread Boris Rauchmann
External Email - Use Caution

 <>Dear FreeSurfer Developers,

 

I´m trying to extract the cortical thickness of individuals from a study cohort 
based on an hammersmith n30r83 atlas segmentation. I have this atlas only in as 
a volumetric file. I already run recon-all on all subjects. I tried 
mri_vol2surf and then mris_seg2annot but without success so far. What commands 
would you recommend me to run?

 

Thanks,

Boris___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness at Individual Vertices (fwd)

2018-07-18 Thread James Gullickson
External Email - Use Caution

Thanks for the input, all. Much appreciated.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Bruce Fischl 
wrote:

>
> from Tom
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:51:31 +0100
> From: Thomas Nichols 
> To: Bruce Fischl 
> Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness at Individual Vertices
>
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi Bruce!
> James: I don't have any particular deep thoughts except, all things equal,
> if you have a tenable
> continuous summary of the mTBI deficits it will probably be more
> sensitivity than a discrete
> count-based summary of the deficits.
>
> Bruce's idea of comparing distributions is sound but probably will only
> work well for mTBI effect
> that are diffuse.  For localised effects (that are not spatially
> consistent), finding some summary
> measure of the deficits are probably the best way forward.
>
> -Tom
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:31 PM Bruce Fischl 
> wrote:
>   Hi James
>
>   you could use techniques that compare the whole distribution of
>   thicknesses across subject populations. You could do a t-test or
> something
>   non-parametric like a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or use permutation testing.
> I'll
>   cc Tom Nichols so he can chime in with something more sophisticated
> or
>   specific.
>
>   cheers
>   Bruce
>
>
>
>   On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, James Gullickson
>   wrote:
>
>   >
>   > External Email - Use Caution
>   >
>   > All,
>   > I am comparing cortical thickness between subjects with and
> without mild traumatic
>   brain injury
>   > (mTBI). So far the contrasts in QDEC have not been significant
> after correcting for
>   multiple
>   > comparisons. I am not necessarily surprised at this due to the
> heterogeneous nature of
>   mTBI in our
>   > sample, i.e. we do not expect any two subjects to have damage in
> the same area. I am
>   interested in
>   > ways to compare cortical thickness that are not dependent on a
> single ROI having an
>   effect across
>   > subjects. One way I have tried is calculating z-scores for the
> values in the
>   aparc.stats file, and
>   > using the number of abnormally low ROIs as a dependant variable to
> compare between
>   groups.
>   >
>   > Is there a way to look at thickness differences at an even more
> general level? E.g. by
>   comparing the
>   > number of vertices with abnormally low thickness? If so how would
> one go about that
>   with Freesurfer
>   > data?
>   >
>   > This paper takes a similar approach with DTI. I'd like to do
> something analogous to
>   their "number of
>   > voxels with low FA" analysis.
>   > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381191
> 1012146
>   >
>   > Thanks,
>   >
>   > James
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   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.
>
>
>
> --
> __
> Thomas Nichols, PhD
> Professor of Neuroimaging Statistics
> Nuffield Department of Population Health | University of Oxford
> Big Data Institute | Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and
> Discovery
> Old Road Campus | Headington | Oxford | OX3 7LF | United Kingdom
> T: +44 1865 743590 | E: thomas.nich...@bdi.ox.ac.uk
> W: http://nisox.org | http://www.bdi.ox.ac.uk
>
> ___
> 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 a

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness at Individual Vertices (fwd)

2018-07-12 Thread Bruce Fischl


from Tom

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 16:51:31 +0100
From: Thomas Nichols 
To: Bruce Fischl 
Cc: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness at Individual Vertices


External Email - Use Caution

Hi Bruce!
James: I don't have any particular deep thoughts except, all things equal, if 
you have a tenable
continuous summary of the mTBI deficits it will probably be more sensitivity 
than a discrete
count-based summary of the deficits.

Bruce's idea of comparing distributions is sound but probably will only work 
well for mTBI effect
that are diffuse.  For localised effects (that are not spatially consistent), 
finding some summary
measure of the deficits are probably the best way forward.

-Tom

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 4:31 PM Bruce Fischl  wrote:
  Hi James

  you could use techniques that compare the whole distribution of
  thicknesses across subject populations. You could do a t-test or something
  non-parametric like a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or use permutation testing. I'll
  cc Tom Nichols so he can chime in with something more sophisticated or
  specific.

  cheers
  Bruce



  On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, James Gullickson
  wrote:

  >
  > External Email - Use Caution
  >
  > All,
  > I am comparing cortical thickness between subjects with and without 
mild traumatic
  brain injury
  > (mTBI). So far the contrasts in QDEC have not been significant after 
correcting for
  multiple
  > comparisons. I am not necessarily surprised at this due to the 
heterogeneous nature of
  mTBI in our
  > sample, i.e. we do not expect any two subjects to have damage in the 
same area. I am
  interested in
  > ways to compare cortical thickness that are not dependent on a single 
ROI having an
  effect across
  > subjects. One way I have tried is calculating z-scores for the values 
in the
  aparc.stats file, and
  > using the number of abnormally low ROIs as a dependant variable to 
compare between
  groups. 
  >
  > Is there a way to look at thickness differences at an even more general 
level? E.g. by
  comparing the
  > number of vertices with abnormally low thickness? If so how would one 
go about that
  with Freesurfer
  > data?
  >
  > This paper takes a similar approach with DTI. I'd like to do something 
analogous to
  their "number of
  > voxels with low FA" analysis.
  > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911012146
  >
  > Thanks,
  >
  > James
  >
  >


  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.



--
__
Thomas Nichols, PhD
Professor of Neuroimaging Statistics
Nuffield Department of Population Health | University of Oxford
Big Data Institute | Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Information and Discovery
Old Road Campus | Headington | Oxford | OX3 7LF | United Kingdom
T: +44 1865 743590 | E: thomas.nich...@bdi.ox.ac.uk
W: http://nisox.org | http://www.bdi.ox.ac.uk
___
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.


[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness at Individual Vertices

2018-07-11 Thread James Gullickson
External Email - Use Caution

All,

I am comparing cortical thickness between subjects with and without mild
traumatic brain injury (mTBI). So far the contrasts in QDEC have not been
significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. I am not necessarily
surprised at this due to the heterogeneous nature of mTBI in our sample,
i.e. we do not expect any two subjects to have damage in the same area. I
am interested in ways to compare cortical thickness that are not dependent
on a single ROI having an effect across subjects. One way I have tried is
calculating z-scores for the values in the aparc.stats file, and using the
number of abnormally low ROIs as a dependant variable to compare between
groups.

Is there a way to look at thickness differences at an even more general
level? E.g. by comparing the number of vertices with abnormally low
thickness? If so how would one go about that with Freesurfer data?

This paper takes a similar approach with DTI. I'd like to do something
analogous to their "number of voxels with low FA" analysis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811911012146

Thanks,

James
___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-15 Thread Douglas Greve
There are files called lh.area and lh.volume that you can use instead of 
lh.thickness. Make sure to use the --jac flag when applying 
mri_surf2surf to area or volume (but not thickness). This applies 
jacobian correction to preserve the total area or volume. When you run 
mri_segstats, include the --accumulate flag so that it reports the total 
area or volume.



On 6/14/18 6:42 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:

 External Email - Use Caution

Hi again Doug,

Sorry for not realizing this earlier, but I actually found a workflow that you 
created, which outlines the steps really well. 
(https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/VolumeRoiCorticalThickness)

However, instead of 'fsaverage' I used the the MNI brain I had previously 
recon-ed to map the ROI to the surface. By using mri_surf2surf I mapped my 
subject's thickness data to the mni brain and optained the cortical thickness. 
My questions are the following: how do I obtain the surface area and volume for 
this ROI? Is there a way to also obtain non-segmented stats? Also, the reason I 
didn't map the ROI to fsaverage was because I didn’t have access...is there a 
way to change that?

Thank you for your time.

Best,

Ryan



-- Ryan Flores Clinical Research Coordinator On 6/14/18, 11:32 AM, 
"freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Douglas N. Greve" 
dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: You can create an annotation with 
mris_seg2annot and then view it in freeview. Run it with --help to get 
docs On 06/14/2018 02:18 PM, Ryan Flores wrote: > External Email - Use 
Caution > > Great. That seemed to have worked. Is there a way to inspect 
that the ROIs have been correctly placed? Perhaps by using freeview? > > 
Best, > > Ryan > - Ryan Flores Clinical Research Coordinator On 6/14/18, 
11:02 AM,"freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Douglas N. 
Greve" dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: The --trgsurfval is just the output (ie, 
lh.atlas.nii.gz sampled onto the surface of the subject). Use nii.gz or 
mgz for the output (not img). On 06/14/2018 01:46 PM, Ryan Flores wrote: 
> External Email - Use Caution > > Thank you for your response. Just to 
clarify, the first command should be mri_vol2surf, correct? It appears 
to have worked; however, I'm not sure what my --trgsurfval should be? 
I'm trying the following commands, where mni is the subject directory 
for the mni brain I recon-ed and sub01 is the subject I want to transfer 
the atlas to so that I can obtain the cortical thickness. > > 1. 
mri_vol2surf --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader mni --hemi lh --projfrac-max 
0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz > 2. mri_surf2surf --srcsubject mni 
--srcsurfval lh.atlas.nii.gz --trgsubject sub01 --trgsurfval 
hammers-01-lh.img --mapmethod nnf > > I tried running mri_surf2surf 
--help, but unfortunately the examples didn’t really apply to my case. I 
apologize for the potential trivial question in advance. Thanks again 
for your help. > > Best, > > Ryan > -- Ryan Flores Clinical Research 
Coordinator On 6/14/18, 8:33 AM, "freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
on behalf of Douglas N. Greve" on behalf of dgr...@mgh.harvard.edu> wrote: You can always get info by 
running the command with --help. mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz 
--regheader subject --hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz 
This assumes that the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can 
test with tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg 
deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration) You can take 
lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to transfer to an 
individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM, 
Ryan Flores wrote: > > External Email - Use Caution > > Hello all, > > I 
am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical > thickness, 
surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka > Hammersmith) atlas, 
which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates > between the 
hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels. > > After looking 
through the archives I found a potential solution, which > entails using 
the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed > the MNI brain 
to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how > exactly to 
implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any > advice would 
be greatly appreciated. > > Thank you for your time. I look forward to 
hearing from you. > > Best, > > Ryan > > -- > > Ryan Flores > > Clinical 
Research Coordinator > > > > 
___ > Freesurfer mailing 
list >Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > 
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer 
___ 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 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-14 Thread Ryan Flores
External Email - Use Caution

Hi again Doug,

Sorry for not realizing this earlier, but I actually found a workflow that you 
created, which outlines the steps really well. 
(https://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/VolumeRoiCorticalThickness) 

However, instead of 'fsaverage' I used the the MNI brain I had previously 
recon-ed to map the ROI to the surface. By using mri_surf2surf I mapped my 
subject's thickness data to the mni brain and optained the cortical thickness. 
My questions are the following: how do I obtain the surface area and volume for 
this ROI? Is there a way to also obtain non-segmented stats? Also, the reason I 
didn't map the ROI to fsaverage was because I didn’t have access...is there a 
way to change that?

Thank you for your time.

Best,

Ryan

-- 
Ryan Flores
Clinical Research Coordinator
On 6/14/18, 11:32 AM, "freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of 
Douglas N. Greve"  wrote:

You can create an annotation with mris_seg2annot and then view it in 
freeview. Run it with --help to get docs


On 06/14/2018 02:18 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
>  External Email - Use Caution
>
> Great. That seemed to have worked. Is there a way to inspect that the 
ROIs have been correctly placed? Perhaps by using freeview?
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>

-
Ryan Flores
Clinical Research Coordinator
On 6/14/18, 11:02 AM,"freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of 
Douglas N. Greve"wrote:

 The --trgsurfval is just the output (ie, lh.atlas.nii.gz sampled onto
 the surface of the subject). Use nii.gz or mgz for the output (not 
img).
 
 
 On 06/14/2018 01:46 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
 >  External Email - Use Caution
 >
 > Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, the first command 
should be mri_vol2surf, correct? It appears to have worked; however, I'm not 
sure what my --trgsurfval should be? I'm trying the following commands, where 
mni is the subject directory for the mni brain I recon-ed and sub01 is the 
subject I want to transfer the atlas to so that I can obtain the cortical 
thickness.
 >
 > 1. mri_vol2surf --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader mni --hemi lh 
--projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz
 > 2. mri_surf2surf --srcsubject mni --srcsurfval lh.atlas.nii.gz 
--trgsubject sub01 --trgsurfval hammers-01-lh.img --mapmethod nnf
 >
 > I tried running mri_surf2surf --help, but unfortunately the examples 
didn’t really apply to my case. I apologize for the potential trivial question 
in advance. Thanks again for your help.
 >
 > Best,
 >
 > Ryan
 >
 
 -- Ryan Flores Clinical Research Coordinator On 6/14/18, 8:33 AM,
 "freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Douglas N. Greve" 
 
  wrote: You can always get info by running the 
 command with --help. mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader subject
 --hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz This assumes that
 the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can test with
 tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg
 deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration) You can take
 lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to transfer to an
 individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM,
 Ryan Flores wrote: > > External Email - Use Caution > > Hello all, > > 
I
 am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical > thickness,
 surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka > Hammersmith) 
atlas,
 which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates > between the
 hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels. > > After looking
 through the archives I found a potential solution, which > entails 
using
 the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed > the MNI 
brain
 to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how > exactly to
 implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any > advice would
 be greatly appreciated. > > Thank you for your time. I look forward to
 hearing from you. > > Best, > > Ryan > > -- > > Ryan Flores > > 
Clinical
 Research Coordinator > > > >
 ___ > Freesurfer mailing
 list >Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu  >
 https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer  
 ___ 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 

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-14 Thread Douglas N. Greve
You can create an annotation with mris_seg2annot and then view it in 
freeview. Run it with --help to get docs


On 06/14/2018 02:18 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
>  External Email - Use Caution
>
> Great. That seemed to have worked. Is there a way to inspect that the ROIs 
> have been correctly placed? Perhaps by using freeview?
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>

-
Ryan Flores
Clinical Research Coordinator
On 6/14/18, 11:02 AM,"freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of 
Douglas N. Greve"wrote:

 The --trgsurfval is just the output (ie, lh.atlas.nii.gz sampled onto
 the surface of the subject). Use nii.gz or mgz for the output (not img).
 
 
 On 06/14/2018 01:46 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
 >  External Email - Use Caution
 >
 > Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, the first command should 
be mri_vol2surf, correct? It appears to have worked; however, I'm not sure what 
my --trgsurfval should be? I'm trying the following commands, where mni is the 
subject directory for the mni brain I recon-ed and sub01 is the subject I want 
to transfer the atlas to so that I can obtain the cortical thickness.
 >
 > 1. mri_vol2surf --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader mni --hemi lh 
--projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz
 > 2. mri_surf2surf --srcsubject mni --srcsurfval lh.atlas.nii.gz 
--trgsubject sub01 --trgsurfval hammers-01-lh.img --mapmethod nnf
 >
 > I tried running mri_surf2surf --help, but unfortunately the examples 
didn’t really apply to my case. I apologize for the potential trivial question 
in advance. Thanks again for your help.
 >
 > Best,
 >
 > Ryan
 >
 
 -- Ryan Flores Clinical Research Coordinator On 6/14/18, 8:33 AM,
 "freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Douglas N. Greve"  
  wrote: You can always get info by running the 
 command with --help. mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader subject
 --hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz This assumes that
 the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can test with
 tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg
 deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration) You can take
 lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to transfer to an
 individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM,
 Ryan Flores wrote: > > External Email - Use Caution > > Hello all, > > I
 am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical > thickness,
 surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka > Hammersmith) atlas,
 which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates > between the
 hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels. > > After looking
 through the archives I found a potential solution, which > entails using
 the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed > the MNI brain
 to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how > exactly to
 implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any > advice would
 be greatly appreciated. > > Thank you for your time. I look forward to
 hearing from you. > > Best, > > Ryan > > -- > > Ryan Flores > > Clinical
 Research Coordinator > > > >
 ___ > Freesurfer mailing
 list >Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu  >
 https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer  
 ___ 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 athttp://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 listfreesur...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu  
 https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
 
 ___
 Freesurfer mailing list
 Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
 https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-14 Thread Ryan Flores
External Email - Use Caution

Great. That seemed to have worked. Is there a way to inspect that the ROIs have 
been correctly placed? Perhaps by using freeview?

Best,

Ryan

-- 
Ryan Flores
Clinical Research Coordinator
On 6/14/18, 11:02 AM, "freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of 
Douglas N. Greve"  wrote:

The --trgsurfval is just the output (ie, lh.atlas.nii.gz sampled onto 
the surface of the subject). Use nii.gz or mgz for the output (not img).


On 06/14/2018 01:46 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
>  External Email - Use Caution
>
> Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, the first command should be 
mri_vol2surf, correct? It appears to have worked; however, I'm not sure what my 
--trgsurfval should be? I'm trying the following commands, where mni is the 
subject directory for the mni brain I recon-ed and sub01 is the subject I want 
to transfer the atlas to so that I can obtain the cortical thickness.
>
> 1. mri_vol2surf --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader mni --hemi lh 
--projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz
> 2. mri_surf2surf --srcsubject mni --srcsurfval lh.atlas.nii.gz 
--trgsubject sub01 --trgsurfval hammers-01-lh.img --mapmethod nnf
>
> I tried running mri_surf2surf --help, but unfortunately the examples 
didn’t really apply to my case. I apologize for the potential trivial question 
in advance. Thanks again for your help.
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>

-- Ryan Flores Clinical Research Coordinator On 6/14/18, 8:33 AM, 
"freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Douglas N. Greve" 
 wrote: You can always get info by running the 
command with --help. mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader subject 
--hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz This assumes that 
the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can test with 
tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg 
deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration) You can take 
lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to transfer to an 
individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM, 
Ryan Flores wrote: > > External Email - Use Caution > > Hello all, > > I 
am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical > thickness, 
surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka > Hammersmith) atlas, 
which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates > between the 
hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels. > > After looking 
through the archives I found a potential solution, which > entails using 
the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed > the MNI brain 
to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how > exactly to 
implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any > advice would 
be greatly appreciated. > > Thank you for your time. I look forward to 
hearing from you. > > Best, > > Ryan > > -- > > Ryan Flores > > Clinical 
Research Coordinator > > > > 
___ > Freesurfer mailing 
list > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > 
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer 
___ 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. ___ Freesurfer 
mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-14 Thread Douglas N. Greve
The --trgsurfval is just the output (ie, lh.atlas.nii.gz sampled onto 
the surface of the subject). Use nii.gz or mgz for the output (not img).


On 06/14/2018 01:46 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
>  External Email - Use Caution
>
> Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, the first command should be 
> mri_vol2surf, correct? It appears to have worked; however, I'm not sure what 
> my --trgsurfval should be? I'm trying the following commands, where mni is 
> the subject directory for the mni brain I recon-ed and sub01 is the subject I 
> want to transfer the atlas to so that I can obtain the cortical thickness.
>
> 1. mri_vol2surf --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader mni --hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 
> 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz
> 2. mri_surf2surf --srcsubject mni --srcsurfval lh.atlas.nii.gz --trgsubject 
> sub01 --trgsurfval hammers-01-lh.img --mapmethod nnf
>
> I tried running mri_surf2surf --help, but unfortunately the examples didn’t 
> really apply to my case. I apologize for the potential trivial question in 
> advance. Thanks again for your help.
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>

-- Ryan Flores Clinical Research Coordinator On 6/14/18, 8:33 AM, 
"freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of Douglas N. Greve" 
 wrote: You can always get info by running the 
command with --help. mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader subject 
--hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz This assumes that 
the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can test with 
tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg 
deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration) You can take 
lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to transfer to an 
individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM, 
Ryan Flores wrote: > > External Email - Use Caution > > Hello all, > > I 
am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical > thickness, 
surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka > Hammersmith) atlas, 
which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates > between the 
hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels. > > After looking 
through the archives I found a potential solution, which > entails using 
the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed > the MNI brain 
to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how > exactly to 
implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any > advice would 
be greatly appreciated. > > Thank you for your time. I look forward to 
hearing from you. > > Best, > > Ryan > > -- > > Ryan Flores > > Clinical 
Research Coordinator > > > > 
___ > Freesurfer mailing 
list > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu > 
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer 
___ 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. ___ Freesurfer 
mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-14 Thread Ryan Flores
External Email - Use Caution

Thank you for your response. Just to clarify, the first command should be 
mri_vol2surf, correct? It appears to have worked; however, I'm not sure what my 
--trgsurfval should be? I'm trying the following commands, where mni is the 
subject directory for the mni brain I recon-ed and sub01 is the subject I want 
to transfer the atlas to so that I can obtain the cortical thickness. 

1. mri_vol2surf --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader mni --hemi lh --projfrac-max 0 1 
.1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz
2. mri_surf2surf --srcsubject mni --srcsurfval lh.atlas.nii.gz --trgsubject 
sub01 --trgsurfval hammers-01-lh.img --mapmethod nnf

I tried running mri_surf2surf --help, but unfortunately the examples didn’t 
really apply to my case. I apologize for the potential trivial question in 
advance. Thanks again for your help.

Best,

Ryan

-- 
Ryan Flores
Clinical Research Coordinator
On 6/14/18, 8:33 AM, "freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu on behalf of 
Douglas N. Greve"  wrote:

You can always get info by running the command with --help.

mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader subject --hemi lh 
--projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz

This assumes that the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can 
test with tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg 
deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration)

You can take lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to 
transfer to an individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf



On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical 
> thickness, surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka 
> Hammersmith) atlas, which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates 
> between the hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels.
>
> After looking through the archives I found a potential solution, which 
> entails using the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed 
> the MNI brain to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how 
> exactly to implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any 
> advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>
> -- 
>
> Ryan Flores
>
> Clinical Research Coordinator
>
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
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.



___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-14 Thread Douglas N. Greve
You can always get info by running the command with --help.

mri_vol2vol --mov atlas.nii.gz --regheader subject --hemi lh 
--projfrac-max 0 1 .1 --o lh.atlas.nii.gz

This assumes that the atlas is in registration with the mni152 (you can 
test with tkregister --mov atlas.nii.gz --s subject --regheader --reg 
deleteme.dat, the two volumes should be in registration)

You can take lh.atlas.nii.gz and use it as input to mri_surf2surf to 
transfer to an individual. Make sure to use --mapmethod nnf



On 06/13/2018 06:59 PM, Ryan Flores wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical 
> thickness, surface area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka 
> Hammersmith) atlas, which is in MNI space. The atlas differentiates 
> between the hemispheres by using odd/even numbers in the labels.
>
> After looking through the archives I found a potential solution, which 
> entails using the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed 
> the MNI brain to obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how 
> exactly to implement the commands and which flags are relevant. Any 
> advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Best,
>
> Ryan
>
> -- 
>
> Ryan Flores
>
> Clinical Research Coordinator
>
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

___
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.


[Freesurfer] Cortical Thickness Using N30R83 Atlas

2018-06-13 Thread Ryan Flores
External Email - Use Caution

Hello all,

I am hoping to obtain structural information (e.g., cortical thickness, surface 
area, and volume) based on the n30r83 (aka Hammersmith) atlas, which is in MNI 
space. The atlas differentiates between the hemispheres by using odd/even 
numbers in the labels.

After looking through the archives I found a potential solution, which entails 
using the mri_vol2surf & mri_surf2surf commands. I’ve recon-ed the MNI brain to 
obtain the proper space; however, I’m unsure of how exactly to implement the 
commands and which flags are relevant. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.

Best,

Ryan

--
Ryan Flores
Clinical Research Coordinator
___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness and cortical stroke

2018-05-31 Thread Bruce Fischl

yes, I think contra-lesional might be ok
On Thu, 31 May 2018, Guillaume 
Bellanger wrote:




External Email - Use Caution

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for you answer.

I am trying to relate mean cortical thickness with cognitive impairment in a 
stroke population (cortical and sub
cortical strokes).
Should I exclude patients with cortical lesions/ create a mask/ look only on 
contro-lesional hemisphere ?

Regards

Guillaume

___
From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 on behalf of Bruce Fischl

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 1:09 PM
To: Freesurfer support list
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness and cortical stroke  
Hi Guillaume

I certainly wouldn't trust the thickness values anywhere near the lesion.
What exactly are you trying to compute?

cheers
Bruce
On Thu, 31 May 2018, Guillaume
Bellanger wrote:

>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi Freesurfers users,
>
> I am looking on cortical thickness after ischemic stroke, especially stroke 
with cortical
> involvment. Freesurfer is validated in this population, Li, Q. (2015).
>
> When I check the surfaces on Freeview, cortical infarcts are excluded (which 
is great because of the
> major anatomy distorsion) but the pial and white surfaces (in contact to the 
area excluded) are
> different from zero. It seems that Free-surfer still calculates the cortical 
thickness as an average
> measure of the surfaces in contact to the area excluded (which doesn't have 
any grey matter !). I
> send you a picture to illustrate my question.
>
> I am wondering: how does Freesurfer calculate the surfaces in contact to a 
cortical area excluded ?
> If the areas are excluded does it have any consequences on the GLM with QDEC ?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Guillaume
>
>
>

___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness and cortical stroke

2018-05-31 Thread Guillaume Bellanger
External Email - Use Caution

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for you answer.

I am trying to relate mean cortical thickness with cognitive impairment in a 
stroke population (cortical and sub cortical strokes).
Should I exclude patients with cortical lesions/ create a mask/ look only on 
contro-lesional hemisphere ?

Regards

Guillaume

From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
 on behalf of Bruce Fischl 

Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2018 1:09 PM
To: Freesurfer support list
Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness and cortical stroke

Hi Guillaume

I certainly wouldn't trust the thickness values anywhere near the lesion.
What exactly are you trying to compute?

cheers
Bruce
On Thu, 31 May 2018, Guillaume
Bellanger wrote:

>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi Freesurfers users,
>
> I am looking on cortical thickness after ischemic stroke, especially stroke 
> with cortical
> involvment. Freesurfer is validated in this population, Li, Q. (2015).
>
> When I check the surfaces on Freeview, cortical infarcts are excluded (which 
> is great because of the
> major anatomy distorsion) but the pial and white surfaces (in contact to the 
> area excluded) are
> different from zero. It seems that Free-surfer still calculates the cortical 
> thickness as an average
> measure of the surfaces in contact to the area excluded (which doesn't have 
> any grey matter !). I
> send you a picture to illustrate my question.
>
> I am wondering: how does Freesurfer calculate the surfaces in contact to a 
> cortical area excluded ?
> If the areas are excluded does it have any consequences on the GLM with QDEC ?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Guillaume
>
>
>
___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness and cortical stroke

2018-05-31 Thread Bruce Fischl

Hi Guillaume

I certainly wouldn't trust the thickness values anywhere near the lesion. 
What exactly are you trying to compute?


cheers
Bruce
On Thu, 31 May 2018, Guillaume 
Bellanger wrote:




External Email - Use Caution

Hi Freesurfers users,

I am looking on cortical thickness after ischemic stroke, especially stroke 
with cortical
involvment. Freesurfer is validated in this population, Li, Q. (2015).

When I check the surfaces on Freeview, cortical infarcts are excluded (which is 
great because of the
major anatomy distorsion) but the pial and white surfaces (in contact to the 
area excluded) are
different from zero. It seems that Free-surfer still calculates the cortical 
thickness as an average
measure of the surfaces in contact to the area excluded (which doesn't have any 
grey matter !). I
send you a picture to illustrate my question.

I am wondering: how does Freesurfer calculate the surfaces in contact to a 
cortical area excluded ?
If the areas are excluded does it have any consequences on the GLM with QDEC ?

Thanks a lot

Guillaume


___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-13 Thread Douglas Greve



On 12/13/17 8:03 AM, John Anderson wrote:

Dear Dr Greve thank you so much for the advice.

Kindly, I have one addition question and I highly appreciate your 
feedback!
Smoothing on surface is very interesting and it is really more 
accurate than applying the Gaussian smoothing directly on volumetric 
images. I don't see any aggressive shifts in the signal when I smooth 
on surface! In this context, I want to know if the following procedure 
is legitimate:


To  smooth PET volumetric images. I am thinking of using 
"mri_vol2surf" to sample and smooth the PET images on surface. Can I 
then use "mri_surf2vol" to move the smoothed images on surface to 
volume. How about the subcortical regions- is the smoothing on surface 
applicable for the whole brain, or just for the regions between 
pial/white?
You can, but this is usually only done for display purposes (eg, you 
want to show the surface data in the volume along with the subcortical 
data). Usually, we do three separate analyses: left hemi, right hemi, 
and subcortical, smoothing each one in the appropriate way.




You have to sample the volumetric PET data onto the surface

(mri_vol2surf) and then smooth it there (mri_surf2surf or mris_fwhm).



On 12/12/2017 11:23 AM, John Anderson wrote:

> Dear Dr Bruce, I highly appreciate the response.

> I want to smooth PET volumetric images, when I use "fslmaths", it

> shifts the signal from the cortex to the underlying structures. I

> think (depending on wiki) that Freesurfer handles this issue by

> smoothing on sphere. Which is the recommendded stream in PETsurfer.

>

> I am wondering if there are any commands within Freesurfer that can be

> used to smooth volumtric PET images without taking the average signal

> of the neighboring voxels (like in Gaussian smoothing).

>

> Also, I have question about mri_fwhm:

> what is the difference between the flags (--smooth-only; --fwhm). I am

> aware that "mri_fwhm" is very well explained in FS wiki, but I was

> unable to exactly understand the difference. For instance when I use

> the flag --smooth-only the output image is somehow similar to the

> input image. Is Gaussian in this cases ~1

mri_fwhm (and mris_fwhm) where initially developed to measure the FWHM

but I extended it to be able to apply smoothing (--fwhm) as well as

measure the smoothness. The --smooth-only says to not do the FWHM

estimate (just smooth it).

>

> Thanks in advance!

> J

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>  Original Message 

>> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

>> Local Time: December 12, 2017 10:38 AM

>> UTC Time: December 12, 2017 3:38 PM

>> From: fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

>> To: John Anderson <john.ande...@protonmail.com 
<mailto:john.ande...@protonmail.com>>, Freesurfer support


>> list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>


>>

>> Hi John

>>

>> I don't think fslmaths takes a surface topology so they won't be 
the same


>> (mri_surf2surf smooths within the surface and fslmaths smooths in the

>> volume I believe)

>>

>> cheers

>> Bruce

>>

>>

>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, John Anderson wrote:

>>

>>Dear Freesurfer experts,

>>I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed

>>cortical thickness maps.

>>In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the

>>cortical thickness data. I looked into the

>>file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that the

>>following command was applied:

>>mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval

>>lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval

>>lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex

>>Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar

>>smoothing method to the smoothing

>>output of the command "fslmaths":

>>fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean

>> -odt float

>>I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical

>>thickness smoothing method.

>>Thank you for any advice!

>>John

>>

>>

>>

>> 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.

>

>

>

> __

Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-13 Thread John Anderson
Dear Dr Greve thank you so much for the advice.

Kindly, I have one addition question and I highly appreciate your feedback!
Smoothing on surface is very interesting and it is really more accurate than 
applying the Gaussian smoothing directly on volumetric images. I don't see any 
aggressive shifts in the signal when I smooth on surface! In this context, I 
want to know if the following procedure is legitimate:

To  smooth PET volumetric images. I am thinking of using "mri_vol2surf" to 
sample and smooth the PET images on surface. Can I then use "mri_surf2vol" to 
move the smoothed images on surface to volume. How about the subcortical 
regions- is the smoothing on surface applicable for the whole brain, or just 
for the regions between pial/white?

You have to sample the volumetric PET data onto the surface

(mri_vol2surf) and then smooth it there (mri_surf2surf or mris_fwhm).

On 12/12/2017 11:23 AM, John Anderson wrote:

> Dear Dr Bruce, I highly appreciate the response.

> I want to smooth PET volumetric images, when I use "fslmaths", it

> shifts the signal from the cortex to the underlying structures. I

> think (depending on wiki) that Freesurfer handles this issue by

> smoothing on sphere. Which is the recommendded stream in PETsurfer.

>

> I am wondering if there are any commands within Freesurfer that can be

> used to smooth volumtric PET images without taking the average signal

> of the neighboring voxels (like in Gaussian smoothing).

>

> Also, I have question about mri_fwhm:

> what is the difference between the flags (--smooth-only; --fwhm). I am

> aware that "mri_fwhm" is very well explained in FS wiki, but I was

> unable to exactly understand the difference. For instance when I use

> the flag --smooth-only the output image is somehow similar to the

> input image. Is Gaussian in this cases ~1

mri_fwhm (and mris_fwhm) where initially developed to measure the FWHM

but I extended it to be able to apply smoothing (--fwhm) as well as

measure the smoothness. The --smooth-only says to not do the FWHM

estimate (just smooth it).

>

> Thanks in advance!

> J

>

>

>

>

>

>

>>  Original Message 

>> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

>> Local Time: December 12, 2017 10:38 AM

>> UTC Time: December 12, 2017 3:38 PM

>> From: fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

>> To: John Anderson <john.ande...@protonmail.com>, Freesurfer support

>> list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>

>>

>> Hi John

>>

>> I don't think fslmaths takes a surface topology so they won't be the same

>> (mri_surf2surf smooths within the surface and fslmaths smooths in the

>> volume I believe)

>>

>> cheers

>> Bruce

>>

>>

>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, John Anderson wrote:

>>

>> Dear Freesurfer experts,

>> I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed

>> cortical thickness maps.

>> In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the

>> cortical thickness data. I looked into the

>> file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that the

>> following command was applied:

>> mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval

>> lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval

>> lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex

>> Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar

>> smoothing method to the smoothing

>> output of the command "fslmaths":

>> fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean

>>  -odt float

>> I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical

>> thickness smoothing method.

>> Thank you for any advice!

>> John

>>

>>

>>

>> 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

> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

--

Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.

MGH-NMR Center

gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu

Phone Number: 617-724-2358

Fax: 617-726-7422

Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting

FileDrop: https://gate.nmr.m

Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness clarification

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Fischl
Hi Eli,

because the "closest" metric isn't symmetric. White-->Pial != pial-->white

cheers
Bruce


On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, Rockers, Elijah D. wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I was hoping to get some clarification on how exactly the cortical thickness 
> number is calculated.
> In the videos, Doug says it's "the distance between the vertex on the white 
> to the vertex on the
> pial, and you go backwards and forwards to compute the average thickness", 
> and the 2000 paper says
> "the thickness is computed as the average of this distance measured from each 
> surface to the other".
> 
> From what I understand, You find the closest vertex on the pial surface from 
> a given white matter
> surface vertex, then calculate the distance both ways and take the average. 
> Why is the value not the
> same both ways, i.e., from white to pial, and from pial to white?
> 
> Thanks very much,
> Eli
> 
> Houston Methodist. Leading Medicine.
> 
> Houston Methodist is ranked by U.S. News & World Report as the No. 1 hospital 
> in Texas for patient
> care. Houston Methodist is nationally ranked in 8 specialties and is 
> designated as a Magnet hospital
> for excellence in nursing. Visit us at houstonmethodist.org. Follow us at 
> twitter.com/MethodistHosp
> and facebook.com/HoustonMethodist.
> 
> ***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This e-mail is the property of Houston Methodist 
> and/or its relevant
> affiliates and may contain restricted and privileged material for the sole 
> use of the intended
> recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is 
> strictly prohibited. If you
> are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), 
> please contact the
> sender and delete all copies of the message. Thank you.
> 
> 
>
___
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.



[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness clarification

2017-12-12 Thread Rockers, Elijah D.
Hello,

I was hoping to get some clarification on how exactly the cortical thickness 
number is calculated. In the videos, Doug says it's "the distance between the 
vertex on the white to the vertex on the pial, and you go backwards and 
forwards to compute the average thickness", and the 2000 paper says "the 
thickness is computed as the average of this distance measured from each 
surface to the other".

From what I understand, You find the closest vertex on the pial surface from a 
given white matter surface vertex, then calculate the distance both ways and 
take the average. Why is the value not the same both ways, i.e., from white to 
pial, and from pial to white?

Thanks very much,
Eli

Houston Methodist. Leading Medicine. Houston Methodist is ranked by U.S. News & 
World Report as the No. 1 hospital in Texas for patient care. Houston Methodist 
is nationally ranked in 8 specialties and is designated as a Magnet hospital 
for excellence in nursing.  Visit us at  houstonmethodist.org. Follow us at  
twitter.com/MethodistHosp and facebook.com/HoustonMethodist.  
***CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** This e-mail is the property of Houston Methodist 
and/or its relevant affiliates and may contain restricted and privileged 
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, 
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the 
intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact 
the sender and delete all copies of the message. Thank you.
___
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-12 Thread Douglas N Greve
You have to sample the volumetric PET data onto the surface 
(mri_vol2surf) and then smooth it there (mri_surf2surf or mris_fwhm).


On 12/12/2017 11:23 AM, John Anderson wrote:
> Dear Dr Bruce, I highly appreciate the response.
> I want to smooth PET volumetric images, when I use "fslmaths", it 
> shifts the signal from the cortex to the underlying structures. I 
> think (depending on wiki) that Freesurfer handles this issue by 
> smoothing on sphere. Which is the recommendded stream in PETsurfer.
>
> I am wondering if there are any commands within Freesurfer that can be 
> used to smooth volumtric PET images without taking the average signal 
> of the neighboring voxels (like in Gaussian smoothing).
>
> Also, I have question about mri_fwhm:
> what is the difference between the flags (--smooth-only; --fwhm). I am 
> aware that "mri_fwhm" is very well explained in FS wiki, but I was 
> unable to exactly understand the difference. For instance when I use 
> the flag --smooth-only the output image is somehow similar to the 
> input image. Is Gaussian in this cases ~1
mri_fwhm (and mris_fwhm) where initially developed to measure the FWHM 
but I extended it to be able to apply smoothing (--fwhm) as well as 
measure the smoothness. The --smooth-only says to not do the FWHM 
estimate (just smooth it).
>
> Thanks in advance!
> J
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing
>> Local Time: December 12, 2017 10:38 AM
>> UTC Time: December 12, 2017 3:38 PM
>> From: fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>> To: John Anderson <john.ande...@protonmail.com>, Freesurfer support 
>> list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>>
>> Hi John
>>
>> I don't think fslmaths takes a surface topology so they won't be the same
>> (mri_surf2surf smooths within the surface and fslmaths smooths in the
>> volume I believe)
>>
>> cheers
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, John Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Dear Freesurfer experts,
>> I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed
>> cortical thickness maps.
>> In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the
>> cortical thickness data. I looked into the
>> file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that the
>> following command was applied:
>> mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval
>> lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval
>> lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex
>> Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar
>> smoothing method to the smoothing
>> output of the command "fslmaths":
>> fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean
>>  -odt float
>> I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical
>> thickness smoothing method.
>> Thank you for any advice!
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

-- 
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
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
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-12 Thread Douglas N Greve
To reinforce what bruce is saying, mri_surf2surf does surface-based 
smoothing (ie, along the cortical surface), whereas fslmaths does 
volume-based smoothing which does not take into account the anatomy


On 12/12/2017 10:38 AM, Bruce Fischl wrote:
> Hi John
>
> I don't think fslmaths takes a surface topology so they won't be the 
> same (mri_surf2surf smooths within the surface and fslmaths smooths in 
> the volume I believe)
>
> cheers
> Bruce
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, John Anderson wrote:
>
>> Dear Freesurfer experts,
>> I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed cortical 
>> thickness maps.
>> In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the cortical 
>> thickness data. I looked into the
>> file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that the following 
>> command was applied:
>>
>> mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval 
>> lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval
>> lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex
>>
>> Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar 
>> smoothing method to the smoothing
>> output of the command "fslmaths":
>>
>> fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean 
>>  -odt float
>>
>> I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical 
>> thickness smoothing method.
>>
>> Thank you for any advice!
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

-- 
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
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
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.



Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-12 Thread John Anderson
Dear Dr Bruce, I highly appreciate the response.
I want to smooth PET volumetric images, when I use "fslmaths", it shifts the 
signal from the cortex to the underlying structures. I think (depending on 
wiki) that Freesurfer handles this issue by smoothing on sphere. Which is the 
recommendded stream in PETsurfer.

I am wondering if there are any commands within Freesurfer that can be used to 
smooth volumtric PET images without taking the average signal of the 
neighboring voxels (like in Gaussian smoothing).

Also, I have question about mri_fwhm:
what is the difference between the flags (--smooth-only; --fwhm). I am aware 
that "mri_fwhm" is very well explained in FS wiki, but I was unable to exactly 
understand the difference. For instance when I use the flag --smooth-only the 
output image is somehow similar to the input image. Is Gaussian in this cases ~1

Thanks in advance!
J

>  Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing
> Local Time: December 12, 2017 10:38 AM
> UTC Time: December 12, 2017 3:38 PM
> From: fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> To: John Anderson <john.ande...@protonmail.com>, Freesurfer support list 
> <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>
> Hi John
>
> I don't think fslmaths takes a surface topology so they won't be the same
> (mri_surf2surf smooths within the surface and fslmaths smooths in the
> volume I believe)
>
> cheers
> Bruce
>
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, John Anderson wrote:
>
>> Dear Freesurfer experts,
>> I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed cortical 
>> thickness maps.
>> In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the cortical thickness 
>> data. I looked into the
>> file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that the following 
>> command was applied:
>> mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval 
>> lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval
>> lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex
>> Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar smoothing 
>> method to the smoothing
>> output of the command "fslmaths":
>> fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean  
>> -odt float
>> I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical thickness 
>> smoothing method.
>> Thank you for any advice!
>> John
>
> 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
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.


Re: [Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-12 Thread Bruce Fischl

Hi John

I don't think fslmaths takes a surface topology so they won't be the same 
(mri_surf2surf smooths within the surface and fslmaths smooths in the 
volume I believe)


cheers
Bruce


On Tue, 12 Dec 2017, John Anderson wrote:


Dear Freesurfer experts,
I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed cortical thickness 
maps.
In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the cortical thickness 
data. I looked into the
file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that the following command 
was applied:

mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval 
lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval
lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex

Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar smoothing 
method to the smoothing
output of the command "fslmaths":

fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean  -odt 
float

I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical thickness 
smoothing method. 

Thank you for any advice!
John


___
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.


[Freesurfer] cortical thickness smoothing

2017-12-12 Thread John Anderson
Dear Freesurfer experts,
I ran recon-all with the flag -qcache to generate smoothed cortical thickness 
maps.
In order to check how the flag "-qcache" is smoothing the cortical thickness 
data. I looked into the file $subj_dir/scripts/recon-all.log" which showed that 
the following command was applied:

mri_surf2surf --prune --s fsaverage --hemi lh --fwhm 5--sval 
lh.sulc.fsaverage.mgh --tval lh.sulc.fwhm5.fsaverage.mgh --cortex

Please I want to know whether the flag "--fwhm" applies similar smoothing 
method to the smoothing output of the command "fslmaths":

fslmaths  -kernel gauss 2.213 -fmean  -odt 
float

I want to smooth two different modality-images using the cortical thickness 
smoothing method.

Thank you for any advice!
John___
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.


[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness

2017-09-11 Thread Esteban, Eva(GE Healthcare)
Hi Douglas,

Thank you very much for that, I will try it!

Eva

-Original Message-
From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
[mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas N Greve
Sent: 05 September 2017 22:07
To: freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Subject: EXT: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness

You need to map them into the same space. You can use mris_apply_reg to map one 
subject into the other or you can use mris_preproc to put them both into 
fsaverage space


On 09/01/2017 10:29 AM, Esteban, Eva(GE Healthcare) wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am trying to compare the difference in cortical thickness between 
> two subjects by overlaying the surfaces (lh.thickness and r
> rh.thickness) but -diff doesn't seem to be doing the work. Does anyone 
> know of any other commands which could be useful for this?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Eva
>
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

--
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
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
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.


___
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness

2017-09-05 Thread Douglas N Greve
You need to map them into the same space. You can use mris_apply_reg to 
map one subject into the other or you can use mris_preproc to put them 
both into fsaverage space


On 09/01/2017 10:29 AM, Esteban, Eva(GE Healthcare) wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am trying to compare the difference in cortical thickness between 
> two subjects by overlaying the surfaces (lh.thickness and r 
> rh.thickness) but -diff doesn’t seem to be doing the work. Does anyone 
> know of any other commands which could be useful for this?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Eva
>
>
>
> ___
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer

-- 
Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
MGH-NMR Center
gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
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
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.



[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness

2017-09-01 Thread Esteban, Eva(GE Healthcare)
Hello everyone,

I am trying to compare the difference in cortical thickness between two 
subjects by overlaying the surfaces (lh.thickness and r rh.thickness) but -diff 
doesn't seem to be doing the work. Does anyone know of any other commands which 
could be useful for this?

Thank you!

Eva

___
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.


[Freesurfer] Cortical thickness map

2017-08-29 Thread Esteban, Eva(GE Healthcare)
Hello,

Okay, thanks for the explanation. Is that thickness referring to the cortical 
thickness?

Eva
-Original Message-
From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
[mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Bruce Fischl
Sent: 29 August 2017 15:40
To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: EXT: Re: [Freesurfer] Cortical thickness map

thickness isn't a surface - it's a scalar overlay over the surface. Try 
something like:


freeview -f lh.inflated:overlay=lh.thickness

with the appropriate paths to the surfaces and thickness files

cheers
Bruce
On Tue, 29 
Aug 2017, Esteban, 
Eva(GE Healthcare) wrote:

> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
>  
> 
> I am trying to overlay a cortical thickness map onto a subject but when I try 
> this command
> 
>  
> 
> freeview -v good_output/mri/T1.mgz good_output/mri/wm.mgz 
> good_output/mri/brainmask.mgz 
> good_output/mri/aseg.mgz:colormap=lut:opacity=0.2 -f
> good_output/surf/lh.thickness.fsaverage.mgh:edgecolor=blue  
> 
>  
> 
> or this command: freeview -v good_output/mri/T1.mgz good_output/mri/wm.mgz 
> good_output/mri/brainmask.mgz 
> good_output/mri/aseg.mgz:colormap=lut:opacity=0.2 -f
> good_output/surf/lh.thickness:edgecolor=blue
> 
>  
> 
> I get an error saying:
> 
>  
> 
> nquads=1966084,  nvertices=599
> 
> ERROR: MRISread: file 
> '/home/eva/Downloads/tutorial_data/buckner_data/tutorial_subjs/good_output/surf/lh.thickness'
>  has many more faces than vertices!
> 
> Probably trying to use a scalar data file as a surface!
> 
>  
> 
> Do any of you know how to load it properly?
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

___
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.



  1   2   3   4   >