Dear Christian,
I tried what Patrick suggested and, in fact, the average cortical thickness is identical to that estimated by CAT12. However, I noticed that this is true for files that have been processed with older CAT12 versions (e.g., 1363, 1450), but not with a more recent one (1742). Indeed, average cortical thickness is underestimated with respect to that provided in the reports of the 1742 version, with differences ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 mm, approximately.
Do you have any idea as to why this may be happening?
Thank you!
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:35:50 +0100, Christian Gaser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Dear Patrick,
>
>this looks correct...
>
>Best,
>
>Christian
>
>On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:30:36 +0000, Patrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Dear CAT Experts,
>>
>>I am trying to compile whole brain average surface features (cortical thickness, fractal dimension, gyrification, and sulcal depth). I have already extracted these parameters. My approach is:
>>
>>LH_thickness = cat_io_freesurfer('read_surf_data', lh.thickness.SubjectID);
>>RH_thickness = cat_io_freesurfer('read_surf_data', rh.thickness.SubjectID);
>>avg_thickness = mean([LH_thickness; RH_thickness]);
>>
>>Similarly, for the other surface measures.
>>
>>Does this approach seem correct? I matched the average cortical thickness reported by CAT in the xml reports file and it looks like those values match the one that I am computing; however, I will be grateful if someone could confirm that my approach is correct and/or point to alternate approaches.
>>
>>
>>Thanks and Regards
>>PB
|