-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
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
lesion_merged.nii.gz shape does not match MNI-Poly-AMU shape #4
Comments
Digging a bit more, I noticed that the PAM50 from SCT v3.0.1 has the matching dims:
@RAOuelletteIV Do you confirm you've been using the PAM50 template? |
Exactly yes, the merging script I have uses the PAM50 template, for the csa_wm/gm and then also for lesions if it exists. The specific commands are as follows.
Great catch thank you! For the manuscript, regarding GM and WM segmentation, should I replace "Dupont SM, De Leener B, Taso M, Le Troter A, Nadeau S, Stikov N, et al. Fully-integrated framework for the segmentation and registration of the spinal cord white and gray matter. NeuroImage 2017; 150: 358–372." with "De Leener B, Fonov VS, Collins DL, Callot V, Stikov N, Cohen-Adad J. PAM50: Unbiased multimodal template of the brainstem and spinal cord aligned with the ICBM152 space. NeuroImage 2018; 165: 170–179."? |
No, these are two different things. Text should be something like: each individual data was registered to the PAM50 template [De Leener NIMG 2018] using the method described in [Dupont NIMG 2017]. |
The script worked great! I applied it to the entire cohort and am now processing the results. I had to combine the innermost layers 7-9, so that the layers were more comparable and represented through the majority of the length of the spinal cord. |
Cool! I suggest you push whatever changes you made to the script in this branch, so that you can include the github link in your manuscript for full transparency (we can do a release to freeze the code in time). |
MNI-Poly-AMU from SCT v3.0.1 (https://osf.io/sh6h4/)
@RAOuelletteIV Can you explain this discrepancy?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: