Difference between revisions of "October 07 2009 Meeting: VT-NAMIC Data review summary"
From NAMIC Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | == General comments == | ||
| + | |||
We made the following observations about the data at the first time point: | We made the following observations about the data at the first time point: | ||
| Line 7: | Line 9: | ||
Other observations with illustrations: | Other observations with illustrations: | ||
| − | + | == Acquisition-related issues == | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
{| | {| | ||
| Line 41: | Line 34: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | {| | + | {| |
| − | | ''' | + | | '''Ringing artifacts for some (few) subjects''' |
| | | | ||
{| | {| | ||
|<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths="300px"> | |<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths="300px"> | ||
| − | Image: | + | Image:calvin-ringing.jpg|'''Calvin ringing artifact''' |
| − | Image: | + | </gallery> |
| + | |} | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {| | ||
| + | | '''Zero filling artifact''' | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | {| | ||
| + | |<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths="400px"> | ||
| + | Image:calvin-zero_filling.jpg|'''Calvin time point 2''' | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
|} | |} | ||
| Line 53: | Line 55: | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | | ''' | + | | '''Susceptibility artifacts''' |
| | | | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | |<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths=" | + | |<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths="400px"> |
| − | Image:calvin- | + | Image:calvin-susceptibility.jpg|'''Calvin time point 1''' |
| + | Image:gucci-susceptibility.jpg|'''Gucci time point 1''' | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
|} | |} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Processing-related issues == | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | | ''' | + | | '''The issue with noise in Tommy and Louis resolved: we do not know how the NIFTI images we used before for Tommy and Louis were obtained -- the DICOM data has much better noise characteristics''' |
| | | | ||
{| | {| | ||
|<gallery perrow="2" heights="200px" widths="300px"> | |<gallery perrow="2" heights="200px" widths="300px"> | ||
| − | Image: | + | Image:tommy-dicom.jpg|'''Tommy, DICOM''' |
| − | Image: | + | Image:louis-dicom.jpg|'''Louis, DICOM''' |
| − | |||
| − | |||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
|} | |} | ||
| − | {| | + | {| |
| − | | ''' | + | | '''Significant mis-alignment of some subjects with the template subject after FLIRT registration for some subjects is confirmed''' Should be fixed in the new analysis. |
| | | | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | |<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths=" | + | |<gallery perrow="3" heights="200px" widths="300px"> |
| − | Image: | + | Image:ralph-flirt.jpg|'''Ralph/atlas post-FLIRT checkerboard''' |
| + | Image:mark-flirt.jpg|'''Mark/atlas post-FLIRT overlay''' | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
|} | |} | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Biology-related issues == | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | | ''' | + | | '''Valentino has structure not consistent with the normal anatomy''' ''Ron: this is likely a cyst.'' |
| | | | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | |<gallery perrow=" | + | |<gallery perrow="2" heights="200px" widths="300px"> |
| − | Image: | + | Image:valentino-issue1.jpg|'''Valentino unknown structure, Fast marching segmentation''' |
| − | Image: | + | Image:valentino-issue2.jpg|'''''' |
| + | Image:valentino-issue3.jpg|'''''' | ||
| + | Image:valentino-issue4.jpg|'''Valentino unknown structure, surface model''' | ||
</gallery> | </gallery> | ||
|} | |} | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 23:12, 9 October 2009
Home < October 07 2009 Meeting: VT-NAMIC Data review summaryContents
General comments
We made the following observations about the data at the first time point:
- In some sobjects the FOV is axis-aligned, while in others it is tilted. These directions were not preserved in the NIFTI data we were previously using.
- We have two SPGR scans of for each subject, but the scans are not perfectly aligned. Ron: possibly due to coil heating. We cannot right away use these images to average and get better SNR, need to check with imaging people. Not sure if discrepancy is the rigid one.
- Noticeable bias field in the atlas is observed by Ron.
Other observations with illustrations:
| Angio sequence (right name?) has apparently been used for some (7 out of 10) subjects |
|
| Fat shift artifact significantly obstructs the cortex in the occipital lobe for all subjects |
|
| Ringing artifacts for some (few) subjects |
|
| Zero filling artifact |
|
| Susceptibility artifacts |
|
| The issue with noise in Tommy and Louis resolved: we do not know how the NIFTI images we used before for Tommy and Louis were obtained -- the DICOM data has much better noise characteristics |
|
| Significant mis-alignment of some subjects with the template subject after FLIRT registration for some subjects is confirmed Should be fixed in the new analysis. |
|
| Valentino has structure not consistent with the normal anatomy Ron: this is likely a cyst. |
|
