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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FSL Home

FSL Home

FSL  June 2019

FSL June 2019

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Best TBSS model to correlate disease-related cognitive dysfunction

From:

baixiong xiao <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 7 Jun 2019 17:46:02 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (136 lines)

HI, lain,
I also finished TBSS, but the result is bad. It is opposite from the
literature. This is the steps I used. Could you find something wrong
in it?

I compared MS(multiple scelrosis) patients with normal controls with
TBSS, they are named in a logical order, as follows
CON01_FA.nii.gz
CON02_FA.nii.gz
CON03_FA.nii.gz
...
CON14_FA.nii.gz
MS01_FA.nii.gz
MS02_FA.nii.gz
MS03_FA.nii.gz
...
MS17_FA.nii.gz.

I used the scripts as follows:

Pre-process:
fslroi MS01.nii.gz b0 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 0 1;
Bet2 b0.nii.gz nodif_brain –m –f 0.3;
eddy_correct MS01.nii.gz data 0(time-consuming);
Get L23: fslmaths L2_image -add L3_image -div 2 L23;

TBSS-process:
tbss_1_preproc *.nii.gz;
tbss_2_reg -T;
tbss_3_postreg -S;
tbss_4_prestats 0.2;
cd ../stats
design_ttest2 design 14 17;
randomise -i all_FA_skeletonised -o tbss -m mean_FA_skeleton_mask -d
design.mat -t design.con -n 5000 --T2;

Then I used this script -----------fslview_deprecated
$FSLDIR/data/standard/MNI152_T1_1mm mean_FA_skeleton -l Green -b
0.2,0.7 tbss_tfce_corrp_tstat1 -l Red-Yellow -b 0.95,1------------- to
display the result.

But what is beyond me is that there is no significant voxels. This is
impossible. Because MS patients have obvious lesions, they must have
some microstructual changes compared to NC.

Then I upload tbss_tfce_corrp_tstat2 -l and set the display rang
0.95:1, now I can find some significnat regions. What I cannot
understand is I think I should find significant voxels in test1,
because as the official website says: contrast 1 gives the
control>patient test and contrast 2 gives the control<patient test. So
in my case, I should have got result from ttest1, this shows the
control > MS patients in FA metric(because the FA values of MS
patients should decrease). But in fact, the result is contrary, why is
that? Did I make a mistake in certain steps? Or should I change the
display range?

Thank so much.



Baixiong








On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:51 AM Shane Schofield
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Iain
>
> Just to chime in if you don’t mind!
>
> Would the intercept be a column of 1s?
> However, this analysis won’t tell us whether the relationship is specific to the patients, right?
>
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
> On Saturday, May 25, 2019, 10:33 pm, Anderson M. Winkler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Iain,
>
> You can do the TBSS analysis in which you investigate the association between RT and AD, while having the groups (patients and controls) as nuisance. The model would be:
>
> EV1: RT
> EV2: groups (coded as +1/-1)
> EV3: intercept.
>
> All the best,
>
> Anderson
>
>
> On Wed, 22 May 2019 at 07:02, Iain Croall <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hello experts,
>
> I've got some DTI data that I've done a TBSS experiment with, comparing a patient population against matched controls. This shows some widespread significant differences in axial diffusivity. There's also cognitive data for all subjects, from which I know the patients are impaired in a reaction time task compared to the controls.
>
> I'd like to correlate the TBSS with the reaction time task. My question at the heart of this would be to ask if the physiological difference between groups (the TBSS AD change) is a driver of the cognitive difference between the groups (the cog. functioning reaction time difference). I'm conscious that simply including the reaction time values in a correlation with TBSS data will undoubtedly produce many significant results simply by virtue of this being linked to WM tract health in any situation. i.e. there will be normal "control" correlations there, and I want to separate that out to see if the damage has led to the loss of reaction time.
>
> A) One idea would be to restrict a TBSS correlation analysis between the AD maps and cog. scores to just the patients, and then try and match up significant locations with where I know AD has changed. But I feel this still doesn't address the issue of how much those relationships were there "anyway".
>
> B) Is there some kind of GLM model mixture that would more efficiently answer the question?
>
> Thanks in advance for any help,
> Iain
>
> ########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=FSL&A=1
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=FSL&A=1
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=FSL&A=1

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the FSL list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=FSL&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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