External Email - Use Caution
Thanks a lot Dr. Greve, that really helps.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Douglas Greve
wrote:
> They give different results because they are supposed to. It may be that
> the effect you are seeing without regressing out ICV is due to ICV, and
> w
They give different results because they are supposed to. It may be that
the effect you are seeing without regressing out ICV is due to ICV, and
when you control for ICV the effect goes away. It could also be that the
ICV causes the variance to increase. This is why I asked you to check
the rst
If you are using surface area or volume, then you need ICV
On 7/25/18 1:51 PM, Martin Juneja wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Dr. Greve,
I am sorry if my questions were not clear in previous email.
Basically, I do not know what to conclude from this gamma comparison
i.e. with and
External Email - Use Caution
Dr. Greve,
I am sorry if my questions were not clear in previous email.
Basically, I do not know what to conclude from this gamma comparison i.e.
with and without ICV as covariate.
Clearly, adding ICV as covariate here, is reducing effect size all ove
The gammas do look different, but it is hard to tell whether they are,
eg, changing sign. Not sure what you want me to comment on.
On 7/24/18 2:17 PM, Martin Juneja wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
Just to add some more info here:
The peak location of regions, X1 and X2, which I
External Email - Use Caution
Just to add some more info here:
The peak location of regions, X1 and X2, which I found without including
ICV as covariate are very close with the peak locations I found in
Gamma_Without_ICV
(~5.15), whereas Gamma_With_ICV is almost all over the brain (
For noise compare the values in the rstd.mgh file, for effect size look
in the gamma.mgh file
On 07/24/2018 12:27 PM, Martin Juneja wrote:
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi Dr. Greve,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply. Could you please give me more details how
> can I check this whet
External Email - Use Caution
Hi Dr. Greve,
Thanks for your quick reply. Could you please give me more details how can
I check this whether its because of noise or its because of less CV
difference?
I am not sure what method/way is the best and commonly used to confirm
these factor
your results could have vanished after ICV correction for one of two
reasons: the CV difference became less or the values became noisier (or
a combination). So check in your data which one of those things happened.
On 7/23/18 8:30 PM, Martin Juneja wrote:
External Email - Use Caution
External Email - Use Caution
Hello experts,
I am interested in identifying regions of interest by comparing cortical
volume (CV) between controls and patients.
After including age and sex as my covariates, I identified regions X1 and
X2, which showed significantly lower CV for pa
10 matches
Mail list logo
