Hi Sean - Are you using 5.1 or 5.2? What registration options are you using? Does your patient population have pronounced anatomical changes (e.g. atrophy) compared to controls? Which pathways did you expect to show
reduced anisotropy in your patient population?
Thanks, a.y On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Sean Hatton wrote:
Hi Freesurfer gurus, I have been using Tracula to investigate white matter abnormalities in a patient cohort (n=20) compared to matched controls (n=40). In line with the literature, we expected to see reductions in FA in the patients' tracts but instead they have significantly higher FA means. To double-check, we ran TBSS over the same cohorts and got the results as per the literature (I.e. reduced FA in the patient group). The FA, RD, AD, MD and volume outputs are normally distributed and there are no extreme outliners. So wondering: 1. The patient group had significantly reduced tract volumes. If this volume calculation is incorrect I expect it could influence the calculation of the mean FA, RD, AD etc. Is there a way of checking the volume and subsequent calculations? 2. Yendiki et al 2011 had no corrections – do I need corrections? 3. Should I be thresholding tract stats? Thank you in advance, Sean Hatton Brain and Mind Research Institute University of Sydney
_______________________________________________ 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.