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 2014

FSL January 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Values in matrix1 after probtrackx

From:

"Meoded, Avner (NIH/NINDS) [E]" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:33:59 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (218 lines)

Dear Mark
Again, a long, not relevant answer to my question.
What about possible explanations related to probabilistic tractography and
not related to corrected DTI data? From people who deal with probabilistic
tractography every day



Thank you

Avner


On 1/19/14 3:09 AM, "Mark Jenkinson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Avner,
> 
> I am sorry that you were dissatisfied with my attempts to help you.  I
> genuinely try to help everyone that I can on the list.
> 
> When working from only a few lines in an email it is hard to not make some
> assumptions, but actually I do not like making assumptions and I try to avoid
> them.  I did assume that you work for the NIH (based on your email address and
> sign-up name) and therefore were in contact with others in the NIH with
> experience in diffusion imaging and analysis.  It is a pity if you do not have
> access to such people.
> 
> I was not intending to imply that we could not provide you any information,
> but the situation that you described, with unintuitive results in an
> experiment with patients vs controls, requires very careful analysis and
> scrutiny to avoid making incorrect interpretations.  This scrutiny would be
> beyond what we could provide in a few paragraphs of an email.  Matt has
> explained something about what tractography gives you and provided one
> potential explanation, but as he points out himself there are other
> possibilities and the interpretation is quite challenging. In your case I
> think it is important to carefully investigate all potential factors that
> could drive the results, such as image quality (e.g. SNR), artifacts
> (including what remains after standard artifact correction), the
> anatomy/geometry of the brain areas you are investigating, as well as the
> biology of the particular pathologies involved. Given the many complex issues
> that can arise here, related to diffusion imaging, brain anatomy and biology
> (not just tractography), I recommended that you seek out someone who could
> look carefully through your data and talk to you about issues related to the
> data, the analysis, the anatomy and the biology involved in this particular
> study.
> 
> I still recommend that you seek someone out to discuss these issues, since we
> cannot adequately cover these things by email.  This is why I was suggesting
> that you find someone in the NIH, but it would not have to be someone from
> there.  I make this recommendation because I honestly think it is important in
> order to make sure that you get a correct interpretation of your study.  If
> you have very specific questions then we are happy to answer them, but I
> strongly encourage you to find someone to discuss your study with in detail.
> 
> As for the response from Tim Behrens, I hope that you can appreciate that
> answering emails, writing documentation and textbooks is something that takes
> away from research time and that each of us makes certain sacrifices in order
> to do these things.  We all have to decide on the nature and amount to which
> we can undertake such tasks.  If we do not limit this time then we would not
> be able to do research, write papers and grants, and therefore stay employed.
> I try to give advice on the list that I feel is of most benefit given the
> limited time I have to answer such queries on what is quite an active email
> list.  I hope that you can respect this situation and can believe that my
> emails were really intended to help, even if you were not happy with them.
> 
> All the best,
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> On 18 Jan 2014, at 13:30, "Meoded, Avner (NIH/NINDS) [E]"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Mark,
>> 
>> I see you like to make assumptions. So let us assume that I am an high
>> school student who does not understand a thing about DTI. Moreover I do not
>> understand the basics of probabilistic tractography. So in order to
>> understand more I read Diffusion MRI book (edited by Berg and Behrens) and
>> also papers that deal with different tractography methods. So now I
>> understand a little bit of tractography but still there are unclear issues
>> that I would like to clarify with the experts in the field- that is the
>> reason I contacted FSL community.
>> If you see the title of my mail it is "Values in matrix1 after probtrackx";
>> The specific question I have is what those values mean? Probabilistic
>> tractography aim to quantify uncertainty on the PDD and build a connectivity
>> distribution. Now if you go and check matrix obtained from network1 option
>> in probrackx2 you will see that the matrix contain values in the range of
>> 1-1,000,000 and beyond. You mentioned in you last e-mail that: "Uncertainty
>> in direction at any point in the brain will enhance the uncertainty in the
>> tractography from that point onwards for any tracks that pass through that
>> point." How can we learn about this uncertainty from the matrix values?
>> 
>> Indeed at the NIH there are many experts who are always available for
>> discussion about all aspects of health and science. However, is
>> FSL/Probtrakcx a NIH application???
>> 
>> Finally I would like to show Timothy Behrens's response to my question :
>> 
>> "if you have posted it to the FSL list then you should get an answer soon.
>> It is a very effective community forum.  You will understand that with more
>> than 5000 users, there is no way I can personally answer every question and
>> hope to maintain a research career!"
>> 
>> This is the answer from the researcher who is the first author on the
>> NeuroImage paper from 2007 about probabilistic tractography, and also the
>> one who wrote the chapter MR diffusion tractography with Saad Jbadi in the
>> book mentioned above.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Avner
>> 
>> 
>> On 1/18/14 4:58 AM, "Mark Jenkinson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Artifact "correction" methods don't fully remove all artifacts, so you
>>> cannot
>>> rule out the possibility that artifacts are causing the things you are
>>> seeing
>>> just because you have run artifact correction.  Such methods remove a lot of
>>> the effect of artifacts but not absolutely everything.
>>> 
>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "steps" but the samples in probtrack refer to
>>> individual streamlines (that are selected from the probability distribution
>>> of
>>> possible streamlines).  Uncertainty in direction at any point in the brain
>>> will enhance the uncertainty in the tractography from that point onwards for
>>> any tracks that pass through that point.
>>> 
>>> You definite cannot make categorical statements such as "more samples
>>> mean[s]
>>> more disease".
>>> As I said, there are a *lot* of things that can influence tractography
>>> results
>>> and you really should discuss you particular case, with your particular
>>> subjects and you particular data acquisition, with someone who is
>>> experienced
>>> with tractography.  There certainly should be such people in the NIH.
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 17 Jan 2014, at 13:10, "Meoded, Avner (NIH/NINDS) [E]"
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi
>>>> The raw DTI data was corrected for artifacts.
>>>> As you mentioned less uncertainty may enhance measures of connectivity. But
>>>> in my case I documented reduced FA and not increased FA, the latter is seen
>>>> perhaps in regions with reduced crossing fibers.
>>>> Now my question is specific to probabilistic tractography: number of
>>>> samples
>>>> obtained from probtrackx between to regions mean number of "steps" track
>>>> does; are those "steps" depends on the uncertainty? So at the end more
>>>> samples mean more disease?
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you
>>>> 
>>>> Avner
>>>> 
>>>> On 1/17/14 7:39 AM, "Mark Jenkinson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> These are not simple questions and it will depend a lot on the nature of
>>>>> your
>>>>> data - SNR, artefacts, amount of movement, etc.  There are also some
>>>>> potential
>>>>> biological possibilities, such as reduction in crossing tracts, which can
>>>>> enhance measures of connectivity (since there is less uncertainty in the
>>>>> crossing region) without meaning that the axonal tract is biologically
>>>>> "stronger".  You should look very critically at your data and show it to
>>>>> people who are experienced with diffusion analysis.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 16 Jan 2014, at 18:08, "Meoded, Avner (NIH/NINDS) [E]"
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear FSL users
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I conducted a study with network1 option and then did structural
>>>>>> connectome
>>>>>> analysis, in patients affected with neurodegenerative disease.
>>>>>> I also performed TBSS and found reduced FA values in different areas in
>>>>>> patients compared to controls.
>>>>>> The problem is that I have higher values stored in the connectivity
>>>>>> matrices
>>>>>> in patients compared to controls, and hence after connectome analyses I
>>>>>> obtained networks that are more connected in patients. Now I know that
>>>>>> these
>>>>>> values cannot represent axons, but how you can explain reduced FA in
>>>>>> patients
>>>>>> and more streamlines evaluated in probtrackx?  Or what are the numbers
>>>>>> stored
>>>>>> in the matrix mean? (after running seed to seed network 1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is this because in patients (with white matter disease, lower FA) there
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> more uncertainty in voxels between roi1 and roi2 and therefore we get
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> samples so basically tracts tend to spread more and as a results more
>>>>>> sample?
>>>>>> so at the end more samples which represents more uncertainty (disease)
>>>>>> Should I normalize the matrices in some way
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Avner

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