Hello all
FYI I have found non-negligeable differences in eTIV for 5.3 versus 6.0 in my healthy young sample It is probably due to the cerebellum computation changes (presented in released notes for 6.0) Unsurprisingly the supratentorial volumes 5.3 versus 6.0 are very similar (all was checked by simple correlations) Could people who have good knowledge of cerebellum studies comment on the reliability of freesurfer 5.3 in assessing size of the cerebellum versus manual tracing? This may need to be redone for version 6.0. Regards Lucette Lucette A. Cysique, Ph.D. NHMRC Clinical Career Development Fellow / UNSW Medicine 2013-2017 NeuroHIV and Quantitative Neuropsychology Group Leader @ NeuRA Senior Lecturer SoMs, UNSW Medicine Affiliated senior researcher at the St. Vincent's Hospital Sydney, Applied Medical Research Centre, Peter Duncan Neuroscience Unit Postal Address: Neuroscience Research Australia PO Box 1165 (Street Address: 139 Barker Street) Randwick NSW 2031 Australia Office Ph: +61 2 9399 1880 Mobile Ph: (+61) (0)431 576 710 (text preferred) Emails: lcysi...@unsw.edu.au (primary) lucette.cysi...@svha.org.au (St. Vincent's Hospital Sydney, related project) lcysi...@ucsd.edu (HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center/UCSD related project) Twitter: @Lucette_C http://www.neura.edu.au/research/themes/cysique-group
_______________________________________________ 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.
