Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SS3T-CSD on single-shell b=1300, 60 gradient directions, single b=0 #20

Open
thijsdhollander opened this issue Mar 10, 2020 · 0 comments
Labels
feedback Feedback

Comments

@thijsdhollander
Copy link
Collaborator

Posting this one as a feedback topic on behalf of Nick (@nicdc), who posted it originally over here.
So as the title mentions, his data is single-shell at b=1300, with 60 gradient directions and a single b=0.

He also mentioned:

...standard ... single-shell pipeline plus eddy outlier replacement, slice to volume correction, and unwarping with fieldmaps (using FSL epi_reg).

This is what the b=0 image looked like, before and after preprocessing respectively:

b0preproc

Note the intensity windowing here is (automatically) min-max'ed, which explains the "darker" image on the right. Other than that, @nicdc, I note that you mentioned unwarping with fieldmaps... however, I've flicked back and forth between these two images (thanks for using the same FOV in the original screenshots; that made this far easier for me), and I didn't see much spatial warping, if even any. Are you sure this is before/after the steps that included this unwarping? I can see though that denoising and/or unringing likely took place, due to the introduction of some negative intensities (which I noticed via the windowing actually). Generally, this all looks good, even though I've got the feeling the fieldmaps didn't have much impact.

So well, the final SS3T-CSD result itself on these data then looked as follows, for the (absolute) WM-like, GM-like and CSF-like compartments respectively:

wm-gm-csf-like

There's not much to say here, other than that this looks absolutely excellent for this type of data and data quality! 👍 👍 All in line with the other feedback provided by others here for similarly low b-value data. You might still want to run mtnormalise on this result, if you haven't done so yet; I think I'm still spotting a minor bias field / intensity inhomogeneity effect in there.

Thanks this piece of feedback; another successful and beautiful result to add to the list! 🙂

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
feedback Feedback
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant