sorry, did not see this before I responded. Ignore what I said
On 5/5/2020 11:13 AM, Iglesias Gonzalez, Juan E. wrote:
Dear Sneha,
We use cortical and white matter parcels in the hippocampal subfields,
which is more reliable than using the whole white / gray matter to
compute parameters. But it could be hacked, albeit it would be a bit
less reliable. I’ll add this to the wishlist / to-do list
(unfortunately it isn’t likely I’ll be able to look at it any time soon…)
Cheers,
/Eugenio
Juan Eugenio Iglesias
Senior research fellow
CMIC (UCL), MGH (HMS) and CSAIL (MIT)
http://www.jeiglesias.com
*From: *<freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> on behalf of Sneha
Pandya <snp2...@med.cornell.edu>
*Reply-To: *Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
*Date: *Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 10:46
*To: *"freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu" <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>
*Subject: *Re: [Freesurfer] samseg with subfields
* External Email - Use Caution *
Dear experts,
I want to revisit if anyone has ran subfield analysis just by running
samseg? If it is possible is it as reliable as from running regular
routine with “-all” recon-all flag?
Thank you,
Sneha
*From:* Sneha Pandya
*Sent:* Thursday, April 30, 2020 4:15 PM
*To:* freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
*Subject:* samseg with subfields
Dear experts,
Is it possible to run subfield analysis (hippcampal subfields,
amygdalar, thalamic nuclei, and brainstem structures) when we only run
samseg on our dataset?
Thank you,
Sneha
_______________________________________________
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
