I see, the problem seems to be that the input maskvtx is not a binary mask.
It's a typical Freesurfer's surface label, i.e a vector with the
locations (1-based vertices) that are going to be included in the
analysis. If you want to include all voxels in the analysis then just
set it to the empty vector [] :
stats = lme_mass_fit_vw(X,[1
2],Y,ni,[]);
Otherwise enter a vector with the indices of the locations that you want to
include in the analysis.
Best
-Jorge
El Miércoles 4 de diciembre de 2013 13:43, Seán Froudist Walsh
<froud...@tcd.ie> escribió:
Hi Jorge,
>
>Thanks a lot for your reply. I will try out everything you have said. Yes,
>you're right. I've finally got around to trying out your toolbox on my
>voxel-based data (see
>http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg31564.html ).
>
>My data matrix Y is 357x2122945 (number of scans x number of voxels) and the
>mask is 1x2122945. I may have misinterpreted how the mask should be input
>though. In the help for lme_mass_fit_vw it says that the mask should be
>1-based. I thought this might have meant making a binary mask, with ones in
>the voxels to be included, and zeros elsewhere. lme_mass_fit_vw didn't like
>the format of the mask so I googled the error, and Google seemed to suggest I
>should be inputting a logical-type file. So I ran logical_mask =
>logical(Mask); before running lme_mass_fit_vw. There are 342934 non-zero
>elements in the mask. This is the amount of points that lme_mass_fit_vw ran
>for.
>
>Many thanks,
>
>Seán
>
>
>
>
>On 4 December 2013 18:22, jorge luis <jbernal0...@yahoo.es> wrote:
>
>Hi
Sean
>>
>>
>>I'm
not sure what is going on. Can you please run the simpler univariate
analysis at some random locations? Eg. At location 1000 of your mask (assuming
you have
to random effects for intercept and time):
>>
>>
>>[stats, st]= lme_fit_FS(X, [1 2], Y(:, mask(1000)), ni);
>>
>>
>>If
your mask is empty then all vertices/voxels are considered in the
analysis. So you should instead run
>>
>>
>>[stats, st] = lme_fit_FS(X, [1 2],
Y(:, 1000), ni);
>>
>>
>>This
can help since you will be able to see the likelihood values through
iterations until convergence. Also check the value of st. If the algorithm
converge then st must
be 1 otherwise it must be 0. Also
look out for any prompted error. You will be able to see whether
there is any problem with your design matrix.
>>
>>
>>Given
that you have a location as large as 337812 it seems that you are not applying
lme to a standard surface-based analysis.
Is it a VBM analysis? What is the size of your maskand data matrix Y?
>>
>>
>>Best
>>-Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>>El Miércoles 4 de diciembre de 2013 5:04, Seán Froudist Walsh
>><froud...@tcd.ie> escribió:
>>
>>Dear Jorge and FreeSurfers,
>>>
>>>I have just been running lme_mass_fit_vw for 6 hours, and I have seen many
>>>thousands of messages like the following:
>>>
>>>"Location 337813: Convergence at iteration 4. Initial and final likelihoods:
>>>607.8828, 611.1052.
>>>Location 337812: Convergence at iteration 4. Initial and final likelihoods:
>>>603.0934, 604.4513."
>>>etc....
>>>
>>>There was the very occasional message saying the algorithm did not converge
>>>at some location, a message I saw only 2 or three times (although I wasn't
>>>looking at the matlab window for 6 hours straight, thankfully).
>>>I thought, so far, so good.
>>>
>>>I came in to work this morning however, and found that it had finished, with
>>>the following ugly message waiting for me:
>>>
>>>"Algorithm did not converge at 99.9997 percent of the total number of
>>>locations.
>>>Total elapsed time is 357.4368 minutes."
>>>
>>>I have two questions please.
>>>
>>>1) Should I believe this message, even though it seems to contradict what
>>>has been printed to the screen while lme_mass_fit_vw was running?
>>>
>>>2) If it really is a problem, what would you recommend I do to remedy it?
>>>Set the convergence epsilon to 10^5?
>>>
>>>Any help is much appreciated.
>>>
>>>Best wishes,
>>>
>>>Seán
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>
>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.
