JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FSL Archives


FSL Archives

FSL Archives


FSL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  January 2013

FSL January 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: combine data from two different scanners and with different tesla

From:

Mark Jenkinson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FSL - FMRIB's Software Library <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:25:46 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (147 lines)

Dear Helen,

I'd just like to reinforce what Michael Harms was saying about reading the FBIRN papers.  There are issues that will not be fully corrected by just including scanner regressors, especially if there are things that affect accurate registration (e.g. imperfectly corrected susceptibility distortions, gradient non-linearity distortions, concommitent gradient distortions) and these are likely to be different between scanner manufacturers _and_ between field strengths.  These are not dealt with by voxel-wise regressors, as such regressors still assume that the registration is perfect. So be aware that there are still significant problems in combining this data together within a single analysis and that many reviewers are likely to be highly skeptical, especially if your subject groups are not completely balanced (in which case the list of potential problems is much worse).  I would seriously consider just reporting the results from the individual scanner analyses side-by-side, as consistency in this does not have any of these problems and is likely to reinforce your point in a much stronger way.

All the best,
	Mark




On 18 Jan 2013, at 14:37, Helen Sawaya <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Thank you Jesper,
> 
> I have both patients and controls tested on both scanners. The number of participants across scanners differs, however. I guess I will try entering it as a covariate and see if I get anything meaningful.
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jesper Andersson [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [FSL] combine data from two different scanners and with different tesla
> 
> Dear Helen,
> 
>> I'm cutting in because I have the same question as Lorena. Given the problem with pooling datasets from different scanners, would it instead be possible to model this variable as a covariate? I'm not sure how this is done but as Lorena said could we add an EV in the glm design (for example coding scanner one as 0 and scanner two as 1). If we don't get a significant difference in results between the two datasets does that mean that controlling for the difference in scanner eliminated the differences in acquisition parameters and other potential differences?
> 
> this will depend completely on how well you have managed to balance the two groups across the two scanners. If you scan all subject in group A on scanner 1 and all in group B on scanner 2 then your group-variable will be identical to your scanner-nuisance-variable and you will get only zeros. If on the other hand you manage to completely balance your groups across your scanners you will have no loss of power at all.
> 
> Jesper
> 
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> Helen
>> ________________________________________
>> From: FSL - FMRIB's Software Library [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Harms [[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 6:11 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [FSL] combine data from two different scanners and with different tesla
>> 
>> Just to chime in, you might find it useful to read some of the papers from
>> the FBIRN project, including those from G. Glover's group on multi-site
>> differences in fMRI and analysis approaches to help ameliorate those
>> differences.
>> 
>> Note also that it is not trivial to truly match "acquisition parameters"
>> across different scanner vendors.  For example, differences in the timing
>> order of the slices with interleaved acquisitions, the default phase
>> encoding polarity, and the handling of bandwidth/echo spacing.  And
>> different vendors use different k-space filtering algorithms, which can
>> make it difficult (or even impossible) to match the inherent spatial
>> smoothness of the reconstructed images, even if you acquire at the same
>> TR, TE, and voxel resolution.  As for differences in field strength, the
>> BOLD contrast is inherently field strength dependent, so "combining" BOLD
>> data across field strengths is particularly problematic.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> -MH
>> 
>> --
>> Michael Harms, Ph.D.
>> 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> Conte Center for the Neuroscience of Mental Disorders
>> Washington University School of Medicine
>> Department of Psychiatry, Box 8134
>> 660 South Euclid Ave.           Tel: 314-747-6173
>> St. Louis, MO  63110                    Email: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/17/13 9:53 PM, "Lorena Jimenez-Castro" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Dr. Jenkinson,
>>> 
>>> Thanks Chris Watson and Pablo Velasco for your response. I got a  follow
>>> up question for you all.
>>> 
>>> Dr, Jenkinson Was your response taking into account that our groups are
>>> going to be balance across  scanners? Does your explanation applies for
>>> scanners with different magnetic field strength or even for different
>>> scanners  from different manufactures but same tesla?
>>> 
>>> Regarding the fMRI  data, I thought,  that if I  the groups are balanced
>>> across the two scanners and we use the same acquisition parameters in
>>> both sites, We could model the difference of the scanners in the design
>>> matrix (with one extra EV) and thus We would be able to analyze the
>>> combined data from the two sites. On the other hand I thought that to
>>> combine the DTI data could cause more problems in the analysis.
>>> 
>>> So, since in  our two data sets the groups (patients and controls) are
>>> going to be balance across the two scanners. That is,  the number of
>>> patients and controls from one site are going to be the same number from
>>> the other site.  Beside, exactly same acquisition parameters  are going
>>> to be use in each site. All the above for the fMRI and for the DTI data.
>>> 
>>> I just want to make sure that even so, it is not possible to combined the
>>> data (neither DTI nor fMRI), because we are going to use different
>>> scanners even if the scanners had the same  magnetic field strength. Am I
>>> understanding this rightt??
>>> 
>>> Thank you very very much. I greatly appreciate your help!!
>>> 
>>> Lorena
>>> 
>>> -- Lorena Jimenez-Castro, MD
>>> Postdoctoral Fellow
>>> Research Imaging Institute
>>> University of Texas Health Science Center
>>> 8403 Floyd Curl Drive
>>> San Antonio, TX 78229
>>> (210) 567-8215- office phone
>>> (210) 567-8103- fax
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________________
>>> Re: [FSL] combine data from two different scanners and with different
>>> tesla
>>> Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:38 PM
>>> From: "Mark Jenkinson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To:[log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> Dear Lorena,
>>> 
>>> I agree with Chris Watson, who answered your original email.
>>> It is very, very difficult to mix different scanners and different field
>>> strengths and in general we would advise against it as there are likely
>>> to be many non-biological factors that could result in changes that you
>>> would detect.
>>> 
>>> If you really want to combine things then I would do independent analyses
>>> for the two different datasets and then combine the results, either
>>> qualitatively or quantitatively, as having similar results on different
>>> scanners is quite compelling.  It also avoids the minefield of comparing
>>> changes in the data that could be attributable to the scanners only, as
>>> all your comparisons, to generate the individual statistical results,
>>> would be done on within-scanner data.
>>> 
>>> Sorry I don't have better news.
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>>  Mark

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager