Hi Arkadiy
1. Yes
2. If you’re correcting the subfields by hippocampal volume: a) the question is
a different one (“which fraction of the hippo volume is attributed to each
subfield”); and b) I wouldn’t correct by ICV, because the values are already
fractions / normalized (see point a).
Cheers,
/Eugenio
--
Juan Eugenio Iglesias
ERC Senior Research Fellow
Translational Imaging Group
University College London
http://www.jeiglesias.com
http://cmictig.cs.ucl.ac.uk/
From: <freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> on behalf of "Maksimovskiy,
Arkadiy" <amaksimovs...@mclean.harvard.edu>
Reply-To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2017 at 16:08
To: "freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu" <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
Subject: [Freesurfer] Hippocampal Subfield and Amyg Nuclei ICV Correction
Dear Experts,
I have seen this question pop up a few times in the forum, but have not seen a
clear response, so I was wondering if someone might be able to clarify or offer
their opinion.
1. Do the hippocampal subfields and amygdala nuclei need to be corrected for
ICV (either by including ICV as a covariate or taking the ration if each
subfield to the ICV)?
2. If so, might it make more sense to correct them (perhaps take the ratio
of each subfield to the hippocampus) for the volume of the hippocampus (after
the hipp. itself has been corrected for the ICV)? If the correction is
recommended, I am wondering about whether the second option might be better,
because the ICV correction might be introducing too much variability for such a
small sub-structure, whereas, correcting for just the hippocampus volume might
be a bit more accurate.
I found two ways of dealing with this in the relevant papers for the hipp.
Subfield and amyg nuclei, respectively, quoted below:
“Then, we correct these estimates for age and intracranial volume (ICV) by
regressing them out with a general linear model. This step is important because
the subregion volumes are strongly correlated with these two variables, which
can easily confound the analysis – subjects with large ICV and/or of younger
age are expected to have larger hippocampi; see for instance (Mueller, Schuff,
Yaffe, Madison, Miller, & Weiner, 2010). Moreover, such correction was used in
(Mueller, et al., 2013), so we used this correction as well in order to
directly compare the results” (Iglesias, 2015)
“ICV was added as a covariate to all ANOVAs” (Saygin, 2017)
I would love to hear any advice/perspective.
Thank you in advance.
Arkadiy
___
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.
