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

ingest Jubrain ontology #206

Open
tgbugs opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 1 comment
Open

ingest Jubrain ontology #206

tgbugs opened this issue May 5, 2020 · 1 comment

Comments

@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor

tgbugs commented May 5, 2020

v18 (has the current hierarchy of the brain areas stated in the "ontology" JSON):
Amunts, K., Eickhoff, S. B., Caspers, S., Bludau, S., & Mohlberg, H. (2019). Whole-brain parcellation of the JuBrain Cytoarchitectonic Atlas (v18) [Data set]. Human Brain Project Neuroinformatics Platform. https://doi.org/10.25493%2F8EGG-ZAR

v13 (only provides a list for the used probability maps (PMs)):
Amunts, K., Eickhoff, S. B., Caspers, S., Bludau, S., & Mohlberg, H. (2019). Whole-brain parcellation of the JuBrain Cytoarchitectonic Atlas (v13) [Data set]. Human Brain Project Neuroinformatics Platform. https://doi.org/10.25493%2FQ3ZS-NV6

@tgbugs
Copy link
Contributor Author

tgbugs commented May 5, 2020

High level regions are semantic, not based on data so using labelPartOf is probably reasonable. All high level regions lack a labelIndex, so may have to put them in readable and construct ids for them. Also issue with things like LB (Amygdala) which appears to have 4 different variants with different labels but that do not have sufficient information to differentiate them, and we may need to merge those back into a single term since the the variants are almost certainly MNI152 (nonlinear asymmetric 2009c) vs Colin27.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant