External Email - Use Caution Thanks for the input.
I was thinking that maybe 7.X would generate better surfaces than 6.0, but all our data is 1mm^3 so I don’t think we’d benefit much since we don’t use the -hires flag in either 6.0 or 7.X Would you agree? Jim From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu <freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> On Behalf Of Nolan, Jackson Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2022 1:34 PM To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [Freesurfer] volumes/surfaces FS6.0 vs FS7.2/3.2 * External Email - Caution * Hello Jim, All subjects should be processed with the same version of freesurfer, especially for longitudinal studies. Either v6.x or 7.x should work for your purposes. If you decide to go with v7.x, you can make a copy of the subjects run in v6.0, then run v7.x using the outputs of v6.0, and the new outputs should respect the edits made using v6.0. - Note: Running recon-all on processed subjects will overwrite the outputs, so make a copy of your older data so it is not destroyed. Best, Jackson ________________________________ From: freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu> <freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer-boun...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> on behalf of Alexopoulos, Dimitrios <dimitriosalexopou...@wustl.edu<mailto:dimitriosalexopou...@wustl.edu>> Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 5:20 PM To: Freesurfer support list <freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu<mailto:freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>> Subject: [Freesurfer] volumes/surfaces FS6.0 vs FS7.2/3.2 External Email - Use Caution We have processed a large pediatric cohort (9-10 y.o. subjects) acquired with 1 mm isotopic voxels using FS 6.0. We are now beginning to rescan the same cohort at 15-16 y.o. using the exact same imaging protocol and scanner (3T, Prizma). If we process with FS 7.2/7.3.2, can we analyze the surface/volume measures/outputs with the earlier FS.6.0. structural outputs? We’d like to look at volume changes and cortical expansion analysis between the 2 timepoints. Is this reasonable or should we run the new cohort using 6.0 as well? Or rerun the earlier cohort at 7.2/7.3.2. Any suggestions as to the best approach. Jim ________________________________ The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail. ________________________________ The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information or other information of a sensitive nature. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return 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 Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> . Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail.
