It could make sense to apply it to WM. CSF I'm not so sure. Are you
really trying to measure the signal in CSF?
On 10/10/18 6:08 PM, David.Mackarthy wrote:
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Dear Dr Greve, thank you for the response
> This is for a map-based study. Absolutely, this is cl
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Dr Greve, thank you for the response
This is for a map-based study. Absolutely, this is clear, I appreciate the
response. I just have one additional question and I appreciate your patience.
Is it recommended to apply PVC on white matter or csf? d
Is this for an ROI-based study or a map-based study? For ROI, we use the
GTM, and it PV corrects for all structures (including WM and CSF). For
map-based, we use MG. MG removes WM (and CSF) entirely. In theory, it
can be run in a way to keep WM and throw GM and CSF away, but that is
not impleme
External Email - Use Caution
Dear Dr Greeve,
I am following petsurfer pipeline to do surface based analysis of PET-FDG data
and I have interest in doing partial volume correction. I would like to inquire
about:
1) Can partial volume correction be applied on white mater, or just
PVC will increase signal in some regions and will decrease it in others.
Eg, for FDG it will increase it in GM and decrease it in WM. The reason
you are seeing such a wide range is that the MG correction subtracts the
WM then divides by the GM partial volume fraction (PVF, a number
between 0 a
Hi Dr Greve, Thank you very much for the great answers.
Kindly, I have one last question.
The range of the signal intensity within the voxels in the original SUV maps is
min=0.00 and max=3.017629
For the mgx images it is min=-43.74384 and max=88.468712
The difference in the range of signal inten
On 8/18/17 10:20 AM, John Anderson wrote:
Hi Dr Greve,
I followed the steps in WIKI to do SUV-surface based analyses + PVC. I
have the following questions and I highly appreciate your input:
1. Why the dimension of the images (mgx.gm, mgx.ctx.gm and
mgx.ctx.subgm) is not like the original
Hi Dr Greve,
I followed the steps in WIKI to do SUV-surface based analyses + PVC. I have the
following questions and I highly appreciate your input:
1. Why the dimension of the images (mgx.gm, mgx.ctx.gm and mgx.ctx.subgm) is
not like the original SUV image that has been fed to the pipeline. i.
Hi Dr Greve,
Thanks again for the great explanation and for clarifying how smoothing may
exacerbate the partial volume effects.
I have additional question and I appreciate your answer:
In the literature of the voxel-wise analysis using FSL/randomise to study the
difference between two groups
On 08/10/2017 11:35 AM, John Anderson wrote:
>
> Dear Dr Greve,
>
> Thank you very much for the great explanation. I will definitely
> correct for PVC using PET surfer.
>
> Kindly I have one follow-up question and I highly appreciate your input.
>
> I have PET data for two groups. I studied the
Dear Dr Greve,
Thank you very much for the great explanation. I will definitely correct for
PVC using PET surfer.
Kindly I have one follow-up question and I highly appreciate your input.
I have PET data for two groups. I studied the difference in PET signal using
voxel-wise ( FSL/randomise) a
The PET signal can change with a lot of anatomical changes in the brain
including thickness, surface area, and gyrification. There is no known
regressor that will account for this. Right right way to account for it
is with partial volume correction (PVC). It is best to do PVC
simultaneously w
Hi Dr Greve,
I have PET data for two groups and I used PET surfer in FSV 6.0 to run the
analyses. The pipeline is straightforward and the analysis ran smoothly without
any issues.
Is it correct procedure to adjust PET signal to differences in gray matter
volume or cortical thinness between two
13 matches
Mail list logo
