[Freesurfer] Opportunity for a research associate in MR imaging
The Hospital of the University of Munich, Germany, is one of the largest and most capable university hospitals in Germany and Europe. 45 specialized hospitals, departments and institutions harbouring excellent research and education provide patient care at the highest medical level with approximately 10.000 employees. The Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research (ISD) is a newly founded institution financed from foundation funds. The activity ranges from basic research to clinical trials (www.isd-muc.de). After completion of the construction phase, the Institute for Stroke and Dementia research will employ, around 100 staff members, graduate students, scholars and foreign scholars. The Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research (ISD) is looking at the earliest opportunity for a Research Associate in MR imaging RESPONSIBILITIES: We are looking for a motivated scientist with methodological expertise in MR imaging and good programming skills (e.g. C, C ++, Pearl, Python, Scripting Languages, Matlab). Knowledge in the collection, processing and analysis of functional and structural MR imaging data and an interest in neuro-scientific questions are desired. REQUIREMENTS: University degree. OFFER: Our Institute offers an excellent multidisciplinary environment (medical scientists, neuro-psychologists, biologists, bioinformaticians, epidemiologists) with modern IT infrastructure and defined times on human MR scanners (1.5T and 3T). A new building with its own small-animal-imaging (micro-PET and -MRI) is currently being built (www.isd-muc.de). The tasks include the establishment of new analytical methods for MRI-data, participation in ongoing research projects and developing of own project ideas. Salary is according to TV-L. The position is limited for two years, extension is desired. Disabled persons will be preferentially considered in case of equal qualification. Presentation costs can unfortunately not be refunded. For more information, please contact Mr. Frühauf, Tel.: +49 (0)89 7095 7800 (E-Mail: i...@med.uni-muenchen.de). HOW TO APPLY: Your application - preferably in electronic form - with the usual documents indicating the earliest possible starting date should be directed to: Klinikum der Universität München, Institute for Stroke and Dementia Research Markus A. Frühauf, Managing Director ISD Heiglhofstr. 55 81377 Munich | Germany E-Mail: i...@med.uni-muenchen.de ___ 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] Converting V1 labels to nifti
Dear Freesurfers, I would like to use V1 labels (created with the Hinds method) for a ROI-based analysis on data analyzed with FSL FEAT using FSL featquery. I have not run a full recon-all segmentation, only recon-all -s subjid -label-v1 I need to convert the labels to nifti volumes while registering to MNI standard space. I guess the right command would be something like mri_label2vol --label lh.v1.predict.label --reg register.dat --hemi lh --subject subject --o lh.v1.predict.label Is there a register.dat from the FSL feat directory that I could use for this? Anything else I need to add? Of course, I would like to keep the resulting volume probabilistic. All the best, Anders ___ 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] recon-all results
hi everyone i run recon-all on some datasets using freesurfer version 5.1. Instead of having aparc.a2009s+aseg.mgz at the end of recon-all, i had aparc.a2005s+aseg.mgz. what to do to have the good dataset (2009 instead of 2005) thanks ___ 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] Downsampling pial surfaces and mapping output to fsaverage6
Dear FreeSurfer Experts, I would like to down-sample the pial surface of individual subjects to have the same number of vertices as fsaverage6. I have done so using: mri_surf2surf --hemi lh --srcsubject 'subjectID' --sval-xyz pial --trgsubject fsaverage6 --trgicoorder 6 --trgsurfval 'outputfilename' This worked well and the pial output surface has 40962 vertices. I now have an overlay vector, which was computed on the down-sampled pial surface, which I would like to map back to fsaverage6 in order to perform a group comparison. Please could you advise on how to do this as all scripts I am aware of (e.g. mris_preproc) use sphere.reg, which has ~15 vertices. Many thanks, Christine ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] Downsampling pial surfaces and mapping output to fsaverage6
Take a look at mris_decimate: ~$mris_decimate -x Help NAME mris_decimate SYNOPSIS mris_decimate [options] input surface output surface DESCRIPTION This program reduces the number of triangles in a surface and outputs the new surface to a file using the GNU Triangulated Surface (GTS) Library. POSITIONAL ARGUMENTS input surface file output surface file REQUIRED FLAGGED ARGUMENTS None OPTIONAL FLAGGED ARGUMENTS -d decimation level target decimation level of new surface (value between 0--1.0, default: 0.5). The resulting surface will have approximately triangles = decimationLevel * origTriangles -m minimum angle The minimum angle in degrees allowed between faces during decimation (default: 1.0). --help print out information on how to use this program --version print out version and exit REPORTING Report bugs to freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu On 12/20/11 10:47, Ecker, Christine wrote: Dear FreeSurfer Experts, I would like to down-sample the pial surface of individual subjects to have the same number of vertices as fsaverage6. I have done so using: mri_surf2surf --hemi lh --srcsubject 'subjectID' --sval-xyz pial --trgsubject fsaverage6 --trgicoorder 6 --trgsurfval 'outputfilename' This worked well and the pial output surface has 40962 vertices. I now have an overlay vector, which was computed on the down-sampled pial surface, which I would like to map back to fsaverage6 in order to perform a group comparison. Please could you advise on how to do this as all scripts I am aware of (e.g. mris_preproc) use sphere.reg, which has ~15 vertices. Many thanks, Christine ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer -- Rudolph Pienaar, M.Eng, D.Eng / email: rudo...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu MGH/MIT/HMS Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging 149 (2301) 13th Street, Charlestown, MA 02129 USA ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] Downsampling pial surfaces and mapping output to fsaverage6
Hi Christine I think you do it the same way, just using -sval instead of -sval-xyz (since you are mapping a scalar field instead of the coordinates). cheeers Bruce On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Ecker, Christine wrote: Dear FreeSurfer Experts, I would like to down-sample the pial surface of individual subjects to have the same number of vertices as fsaverage6. I have done so using: mri_surf2surf --hemi lh --srcsubject 'subjectID' --sval-xyz pial --trgsubject fsaverage6 --trgicoorder 6 --trgsurfval 'outputfilename' This worked well and the pial output surface has 40962 vertices. I now have an overlay vector, which was computed on the down-sampled pial surface, which I would like to map back to fsaverage6 in order to perform a group comparison. Please could you advise on how to do this as all scripts I am aware of (e.g. mris_preproc) use sphere.reg, which has ~15 vertices. Many thanks, Christine ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] Surface-based cortical volume calculation
Hi Andreia, The XhCortexVol measures in the aseg.stats of FS v5.1 are identical to: `mris_volume Xh.pial` - `mris_volume Xh.white` To my knowledge, that measure is therefore simply the difference of the volume encapsulated by the two surfaces. My point was that the surface inaccuracies in the hippocampus and amygdala are tiny compared to the overall variation in CortexVol across individuals, so if you want a measure of CortexVol I wouldn't worry about the fact that parts of those structures are included (and parts are excluded) from XhCortexVol. cheers, -MH On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 15:59 +, _andre...@sapo.pt wrote: Hi Michael and Doug, Michael: As you noted, the surfaces bisect the hippocampus and amygdala, so the small amount of tissue outside the pial surface is not included in the surface based measures of total GM volume. Compared to the overall variation in brain size, this should be inconsequential. cheers, -MH I got a little confused with your answer. The calculation is everything inside the pial surface - everything inside the wm surface. What is outside is half hippocampus/amygdala and is not included, ok. But the other halves are inside the surfaces, being then included, right? Doug: If the thickness was 0 in those areas that would make sense. But do the surfaces have the information that in those regions the structures are hippocampus and amygdala? I checked if the thickness was 0 and from what I'm understanding it is 5mm. What I did was to open tkmedit with aparc+aseg and open tksurfer (for both hemispheres). Then, I used the buttons Save point and Go to saved point to go from tkmedit to tksurfer. What happened was that when the point was located in the hippocampus or amygdala in tkmedit it had a correspondence in tksurfer in regions which have a thickness value. Please see figures in attachement (green arrows are amygdala poinst and blue arrows are hippocampus points) Am I missing something? Thank you, Andreia Citando Douglas N Greve gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu: Hi Andreia, I don't think this is a problem for the GM volume (ie, parts of the amyg or hippo getting counted twice). The thickness should be 0 in those areas, so they should not contribute to GM volume. The computation of the WM volume is done in a different way (still surface based) but automatically excludes subcortical structures. doug _andre...@sapo.pt wrote: Hello, Recalling these emails: The methods are somewhat different. For the value in the aseg.stats table, the method is to compute the total volume inside the pial surface and subtract the total volume inside the white surface. For mris_anatomical_stats, the method is to compute the thickness times area of each vertex. This method will probably underestimate the total volume because it uses the area of the white surface when it should use the area of the surface in the middle between the white and pial surfaces. I've added this to the list of known issues on our release page. doug Alexopoulos, Dimitrios wrote: I have generated surfaces using the the centos4 build (version 5.0) and want to confirm that my surface-based GM and WM volumes are correct. For the surface-based GM calculation I originally used 'mris_anatomical_stats -l lh.cortex.label subjectID hemi' (run from within the 'label' subdirectory) and for WM i used 'mris_wm_volume subjectID hemi' (run from within the 'surf' subdirectory). When I add the calculated left/right cortical volumes, I get a total that is different from what is output in the 'aseg.stats' file, which in version 5.0 is noted to contain total surface-based GM volume (Cortex, CortexVol: Total cortical gray matter volume (based on surface-stream). What are the correct GM and WM surface-based volumes? Thanks. Jim I question came up to me: The surfaces in the hippocampus/amygdala are inaccurate and should be ignored. However, in version 5.0 the cortical volume is surface-based, thus it takes into account the surfaces in the hippocampus/amygdala, is this correct? If so, it is expected that an error is introduced in the surface-based calculation of cortical volume. Has anyone checked the influence of this error? Or FS compensates for the inaccuracy of the surface estimation of these regions somehow? Thanks! Andreia ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
Re: [Freesurfer] Downsampling pial surfaces and mapping output to fsaverage6
Many thanks for your reply. Unfortunately the option -sval didn't work and it is still using the old sphere.reg file. I was however wondering whether mri_surf2surf already sorts vertices and hence makes them comparable. For instance, is vertex 1 on the resampled surface the closest match to vertex 1 on the target surface? In that case, I would not even have to map data back to fsaverage6. Best, Christine On 20/12/2011 15:53, Bruce Fischl fis...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote: Hi Christine I think you do it the same way, just using -sval instead of -sval-xyz (since you are mapping a scalar field instead of the coordinates). cheeers Bruce On Tue, 20 Dec 2011, Ecker, Christine wrote: Dear FreeSurfer Experts, I would like to down-sample the pial surface of individual subjects to have the same number of vertices as fsaverage6. I have done so using: mri_surf2surf --hemi lh --srcsubject 'subjectID' --sval-xyz pial --trgsubject fsaverage6 --trgicoorder 6 --trgsurfval 'outputfilename' This worked well and the pial output surface has 40962 vertices. I now have an overlay vector, which was computed on the down-sampled pial surface, which I would like to map back to fsaverage6 in order to perform a group comparison. Please could you advise on how to do this as all scripts I am aware of (e.g. mris_preproc) use sphere.reg, which has ~15 vertices. Many thanks, Christine 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
Re: [Freesurfer] Reliability and accuracy of Freesurfer
Hi Donald, I have a paper almost published on the longitudinal stream including several repeatability measures (although not everything that you ask for). Let me know if you want to take a peek at it before it goes out. I might be able to send a pre-print version. Best, Martin On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 11:37 +0800, Thomas Yeo wrote: Hi Donald, With regards to longitudinal analysis, I am not as familiar with the issue you are mentioning. Perhaps some other person on the list can comment. With regards to your other comments, I think your reading is correct. However, I should mention that the reported accuracies *really* depends on what structures (cytoarchitectural areas versus functional areas versus macro-anatomical areas) and what accuracy measures (e.g., volume of structures versus overlap of structures, etc.) you are looking at. You probably already know this, but I will elaborate anyhow: The references by Fischl, Hinds, Yeo (from the previous email) are talking about the accuracy of localizing cortical cytoarchitectural and functional areas. Since freesurfer (and most other software packages) uses macro-anatomy (e.g., sulci, gyri, MR intensity) for processing (e.g, alignment of subjects, segmentation) and macro-anatomy does not predict function/cytoarchitecture completely, we expect the accuracy for cytoarchitectural and functional areas to be bounded by the predictive relationship between macro-anatomy and function/cytoarchitecture. In particular, V1 turns out to be very well-predicted by the cortical folds (calcarine), and so when we align sulci/gyri across subjects, there's very small errors in localizing the boundaries of V1. On the other hand, MT turns out to be not as well predicted by the cortical folds, thus the accuracy of MT alignment after freesurfer processing is lower. Conversely, for macroanatomical structures (stuff that is visibly seen in MR) like superior temporal sulcus and the thalamus (in aparc+aseg), we expect the accuracy to be much higher. Even then the accuracy for individual structures may vary. For example, thalamus is more accurately segmented than the amygdala. For individual thalamic nuclei, which are less visible (if not invisible!) in 3T MR, the accuracy is probably much less. You also mentioned that some areas would be larger than the true underlying labels for certain individuals, and some would be smaller. That is certainly the case, but I don't think it is explicitly shown in the papers by Fischl, Hinds, Yeo (although you can probably infer that from other papers listed in the links I sent you). As an extreme example, in one of the experiments in Yeo et al. 2010, ground truth functional MT+ for each subject was defined by thresholding the fMRI activation map using a size threshold. Therefore, the way the ground truth was set up in that particular experiment, any errors in predicted MT+ is due to errors in predicting MT+ location, rather than size difference. On the other hand, if you look at Figure 3 in Fischl et al, 2002 (Whole Brain Segmentation: Automated Labeling of Neuroanatomical Structures in the Human Brain), there is no obvious systemic differences between volumetric measurement of structures obtained by manual labeling versus automated segmentation in FreeSurfer (circa 2002). --Thomas On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:05 AM, MCLAREN, Donald mclaren.don...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent references. From my reading of these papers, the boundaries of an individuals subject can shift by up to ~7mm. Meaning that some areas would be largers than the standard labels and others would be smaller. Is my reading of this correct? In longitudinal analysis of regional volume measures, do you know of anyway to correct for the potential correlation induced by the mislabelling of nodes that go into each regional volume? Best Regards, Donald McLaren = D.G. McLaren, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Research Fellow, GRECC, Bedford VA Research Fellow, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School Office: (773) 406-2464 = This e-mail contains CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION which may contain PROTECTED HEALTHCARE INFORMATION and may also be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and which is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of the e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are in possession of confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail unintentionally, please immediately notify the sender via telephone at (773) 406-2464 or email. On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Thomas Yeo
[Freesurfer] mri_matrix_multiply to move functional images to common space
Hi, I'm trying to move a bunch of partial FOV functional images (occipital cortex only with oblique coronal slices) into common space. For each subject, I have a registration file (register.dat) to register functional images to anatomicals, and I'd like to incorporate the talairach.xfm registration so that I have a matrix that registers the functional images to the mni305 volume. I've been using the following, but registrations aren't coming out properly: mri_matrix_multiply -im register.dat -iim subject/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm -om reg_to_common.dat I'm checking them using tkregister2, but the results don't look great. Is there a better/easier way to do this? Thanks! Andrew ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] Selxavg3 sets high activation to zero
I think this is due to the high DOF and probably high t-value causing the significance in matlab to be computed as 0. This gets converted to Inf (infinity) when the -log10(p) calculation is made, then the Inf gets set to 0 when the volume is saved. The quick fix for you is to change fast_selxavg3.m (in $FREESURFER_HOME/fsfast/toolbox). There is a single line that reads: fsigmat = -log10(pmat) change this to fsigmat = -log10(pmat + eps(0)); Let me know if this works and I'll update our source code. doug Qi Zhu wrote: Dear Doug, I used selxavg3-sess in freesurfer 5.0 to run a big GLM analysis on a monkey data set containing 147 runs. But When I check the results, I found that in the voxels where the t-values should be very high were turned out to have a value of zero. I checked the brainmask, the ces and the cesvar values, they all look fine. It seems that only the ces values in these voxels are a bit high compared to the nearby normal voxels (e.g. 1.17 (ces)/0.00048(cesvar) compared to 0.74/0.00040 in a nearby normal voxel). And it seems that not only me have this problem (similar problem posted in the mailinglist before. http://www.mail-archive.com/freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/msg13789.html). Do you know what the problem would be and how to solve it? Thanks very much for your help. Attached please find an image of the problem. Best, Qi Zhu, PostDoc Laboratorium voor Neuro- en Psychofysiologie K.U.Leuven Medical School Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium) -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html ___ 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.
Re: [Freesurfer] mri_matrix_multiply to move functional images to common space
Hi Andrew, use mri_vol2vol with the --tal --talres 2 or 2mm option (or --talres 1 for 1mm isotropic) option. This will put it into an MNI305 space. So something like mri_vol2vol --reg register.dat --mov yourvolume.nii --tal --talres 2 --o yourvolume.mni305.nii If you did not create the register.dat with bbregister, I would strongly suggest it. It works really well on the partial volume files. If you do, you should specify your current register.dat as the init registration. doug Andrew Dumas wrote: Hi, I'm trying to move a bunch of partial FOV functional images (occipital cortex only with oblique coronal slices) into common space. For each subject, I have a registration file (register.dat) to register functional images to anatomicals, and I'd like to incorporate the talairach.xfm registration so that I have a matrix that registers the functional images to the mni305 volume. I've been using the following, but registrations aren't coming out properly: mri_matrix_multiply -im register.dat -iim subject/mri/transforms/talairach.xfm -om reg_to_common.dat I'm checking them using tkregister2, but the results don't look great. Is there a better/easier way to do this? Thanks! Andrew ___ Freesurfer mailing list Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer -- Douglas N. Greve, Ph.D. MGH-NMR Center gr...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu Phone Number: 617-724-2358 Fax: 617-726-7422 Bugs: surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/fswiki/BugReporting FileDrop: www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/facility/filedrop/index.html ___ 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.
