If you are getting negative values, it probably means that your model 
(instantiated by the X matrix) is not proper in some ranges. The formula 
below extrapolates the effects of the covariates in order to subtract 
them off of a subject's value. If the model is not quite right, then the 
extrapolation will not be quite right, and you can get uninterpretable 
numbers. I don't have a solution for it.

On 9/18/19 11:56 AM, Maximo, Jose Omar wrote:
>
>         External Email - Use Caution
>
> Hi,
>
> I tried that and it seemed to work. My averages between the 2 groups 
> look different now instead of almost identical. Thanks!
>
> I have another similar question. I have a cluster that shows a 
> significant difference between the groups when looking at volume. When 
> I look at the y.ocn.dat file, the values are in the 0.74188 - 2.16321 
> range, which are pretty low for volume. I found a post where it says 
> that you can multiply those values with the cluster size(mm^2) from 
> the summary file to convert them to volume. Then, I tried using the 
> formula you provided below (beta, res, yhat), but then I get some 
> negative values. Negative volumetric values do not make sense, so I 
> was thinking if using the absolute value would correct for that.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks for all the help so far.
>
> >If you say y = ocn.dat, then
>
> >beta = (X'*X)*X'*y;
>
> >res = y - X*beta;
>
> >yhat = X(:,1:2)*beta(1:2) + res;
>
> >yhat will be a score for each subject with the nuisance variables removed.
>
> >
>
> >On 9/11/19 2:40 PM, Maximo, Jose Omar wrote:
>
> >
>
> >        External Email - Use Caution
>
> >
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I plotted the data from the *.y.ocn.dat file and the graph still shows 
> no apparent significant difference between the groups (see attached 
> pic). Then I >found a post with the following:
> >
> /the ocn.dat files have data that is uncorrected in that sense and 
> might need to nuisance factors removed before plotting./
> /There is a design matrix in there (Xg.dat). You can load that into 
> matlab along with the ocn.dat, compute beta = inv(X'*X)*(X'*ocn)/
> /to get the betas. You can then compute yhat = X2*beta2 where X2 has 
> nuisance columns removed and beta2 has the same nuisance coefficients 
> removed, then treat yhat as your data to be plotted./
> >
> >I tried that since I have 2 nuisance factors (age and TICV) and want 
> to plot my significant cluster w/o any nuisance effects. This is what 
> I get
> >
>        1.8973
>        1.8973
>        1.8973
>        …
>        3.4728
>        3.4728
>        3.4728
>        …
> >Are these the mean averages for each group (cortical thickness). If so, is 
> there a way to get a score for each subject?
> >
> >Best,
> >Omar
>       >
> >Look  in the *.y.ocn.dat file.
> > 
> > From mri_glmfit-sim --help
> > 
> >csdbase.y.ocn.dat - this is a summary of the input (y) over each
> >cluster. It has a column for each cluster. Each row is a subject. The
> >value is the average of the input (y) in each cluster. This is a
> >simple text file.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >On 9/3/2019 5:16 PM, Maximo, Jose Omar wrote:
> >/          External Email - Use Caution/
> >//
> >/Hi,/
> >//
> >/Which specific file should I load? I see cluster.mgh, 
> cluster.summary, sign.ocn.annot, sig.ocn.mgh, sig.vertex.mgh, and 
> pdf.dat./
> >//
> >/How can I extract the values from fsaverage space?/
> >//
> >/Basically, what is the correct way to extract values from these 
> significant clusters?/
> >//
> >/Many thanks,/
> >/Omar/
> >//
> >/      Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 15:15:02 +0000/
> >/      From: "Greve, Douglas N.,Ph.D." <DGREVE at mgh.harvard.edu 
> <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer>>/
> >/      Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] qdec contrast and data extraction/
> >/      To: "freesurfer at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer>" 
> <freesurfer at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu 
> <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer>>/
> >/      Message-ID: <2286f9bf-37a4-1be9-2252-0bccc833a218 at 
> mgh.harvard.edu 
> <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer>>/
> >/      Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"/
> >//
> >/      You might have done something wrong along the way. When you run 
> the montecarlo correction, it will create a file with the thickness 
> values in it for each cluster. the first thing to do is to load that 
> and see if you see the expected differences. The other thing is to not 
> go back into native space to extract the numbers. There are several 
> operations that happen as it moves into fsaverage space and in 
> preparation for group analysis (interpolation, and smoothing); 
> sometimes these make a big difference. if the ROI is small, it may not 
> map accurately back into the native space (and you should not need to 
> draw it in the first place)/
> >//
> >/      On 8/30/2019 11:36 AM, Maximo, Jose Omar wrote:/
> >//
> >/              External Email - Use Caution/
> >/      Hi,/
> >//
> >/      I have a question:/
> >//
> >/      My design is 2 groups (HC and Patients in that respective 
> order) and 2 nuisance factors (age and eTIV). When I look at the 
> average volume difference between the 2 groups, I get blue and red 
> clusters. I presume the color coding is where each group is greater 
> than the other (Blue = Patients > HC and Red = HC > Patients)./
> >//
> >/      Then, I processed to extract individual values from each 
> cluster in order to plot them. When I extract data from the blue 
> clusters and plot them, the two groups show no difference in thickness 
> at all, whereas when I look at volume, HC show more than patients in 
> blue clusters (see attached figure). I would assume that both figures 
> would show patients > HC based on the negative statistic./
> >//
> >/      Am I interpreting the colors wrong? Or am I doing something wrong?/
> >//
> >/      These are my steps 1) After applying montecarlo correction, I 
> drew my ROIs to extract the data from; 2) map it onto every single 
> subject; and then 3) used mris_anatomical_stats to extract the data 
> from each subject./
> >//
> >/      Any suggestions are welcome./
> >//
> >/      Best,/
> >/      Omar/
> >//
> >/      Jose O. Maximo, Ph.D. | Postdoctoral Fellow/
> >/      Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Neurobiology/
> >/     UAB School of Medicine/
> >/      University of Alabama at Birmingham/
> >/      Cell Phone: (619) 252-3492/
> >/      Email: jomaximo at uabmc.edu 
> <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer><mailto:jomaximo
>  
> at uabmc.edu 
> <https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer>>/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freesurfer mailing list
> Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
> https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer


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

Reply via email to