sorry, I mean to do it for both the FSGD file and the matlab script. I 
just tried it with your data and it works.
doug

soft.join Huang wrote:
> Hi, doug.
>  
> Thanks for your suggestion, but it does not seem to work.
> After having divided the ICV by 1e6, I reculated the betas, and got 
> the similar results as before in Matlab, just the beta4 -- 
> correspondent to ICV -- multiplied a 10^6.
> And then I computed the rank of matrix X that the value is 4, 
> indicating that each 2 variables in design matrix do not highly 
> correlated.
> Also I have finished an regress analysis including one class variable 
> and one continuous variable using mri_glmfit, got the same result in 
> Matlab.
> A wired situation...
> Is it any additional constrains in mri_glmfit when doing regression 
> analysis?
>  
> Lijie Huang
>
>  
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Douglas N Greve 
> <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>
>     I think the problem may be that your data are "badly scaled"
>     meaning that one column is much greater than another column. Try
>     dividing the ICV by 1e6 and see if you get more similar results.
>
>     doug
>
>     soft.join Huang wrote:
>
>         Doug,
>          Thanks for your reply.
>         I recalculated the beta value and got the same results as the
>         Matlab does, but be different from the mri_glmfit's. I can not
>         figure out where the problem is.
>         Details following:
>             I use the command
>                  mri_glmfit --table lh.volume.txt --fsgd
>         volume.gender.fsgd doss --C gender.diff.mtx --glmdir lh.vol.glmdir
>             to finish regression analysis. and got the beta value (
>         beta1 = 1.9781e+03, beta2 = 2.0639e+03, beta3 = 110.9220,
>         beta4 = 5.1964e-04 ) from beta.mgh file.
>             Using X.mat file and the same dependent variable Y.mat as
>         mri_glmfit's, I got totally different results in Matlab( beta1
>         = 5.19e+02, beta2 = 4.44e+02, beta3 = 90.32, beta4 = 0.0015 ).
>         I don't know how it happened...
>          Hope for your reply.
>         The data I used are all in the attachment.
>          Best Regrads,
>          Lijie Huang
>         On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:45 PM, <gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>         <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>         <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>         <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>>> wrote:
>
>            Lijie,
>
>            I don't know what the matlab regress() function does.
>         mri_glmfit
>            is just
>            solving the GLM equation, which you can do easily in matlab:
>
>            beta = inv(X'*X)*X'*y;
>
>            try that and see if you get the same as mri_glmfit.
>
>            doug
>
>
>            > Hi all,
>            >
>            > I'm working on a group analysis using mri_glmfit.
>            >  In analysis directory, I got a X.mat file which
>         containing the
>            matrix X (
>            > size 50x4 ) used to regress analysis, also the beta value
>         from
>            beta.mgh
>            > file.
>            > Strangely, I loaded the X.mat in Matlab and recalculated the
>            beta using
>            > function regress in matlab, but got a different result
>         from that of
>            > mri_glmfit.
>            > I don't know where the problem is, is there any difference in
>            algorithm
>            > between mri_glmfit and matlab function regress(
>         regress(Y,X) )?
>            or I made
>            > some mistakes during the procedure.
>            > The X.mat file and the dependent variable Y.mat are in the
>            attachment.
>            >
>            > Thanks in advance
>            >
>            > Lijie Huang
>            > _______________________________________________
>            > Freesurfer mailing list
>            > Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>         <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>            <mailto:Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
>         <mailto: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.
>
>
>
>     -- 
>     Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D.
>     MGH-NMR Center
>
>     gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <mailto:gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
>     Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422
>
>     Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting
>     <http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting>
>     FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html
>     <http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html>
>
>

-- 
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: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html

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

Reply via email to