[MINC-users] Mincextract to get voxel values and coordinates?

[Paul Thompson]

--Apple-Mail-26--75548820
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed

Hello Jason, Andrew, Dylan, and everyone, also here's another new paper 
comparing skull-stripping methods, it also combines results of them all 
using a statistical key (a nice idea, as there was not one algorithm 
that was uniformly better than all others):
Rex DE, Shattuck DW, Woods RP, Narr KL, Luders E, Rehm K, Stolzner SE, 
Rottenberg DA, Toga AW.
A meta-algorithm for brain extraction in MRI.
Neuroimage. 2004 Oct;23(2):625-37.
See you,
Paul
http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/thompson.html

On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Jason Lerch wrote:

>
> On Nov 16, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Dylan WAGNER wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>       Also thank you for the location of mincbet. So now I'm 
>> confronted
>> with three choices. Mincbet, skullstrip and the preprocessing method 
>> on
>> on the wiki page for VBM. It's a bloody buffet of skullstripping 
>> methods!
>> Any reason why one would be better? The method on the VBM seems more
>> tailored to each individual subject, though longer to carry out.
>
> The basic answer: they all suck. I think that the method on the VBM 
> pages sucks least of the lot, but I know that others disagree. There 
> has never been a study which compared all these methods, though this 
> paper here might help (it does not compare our cortical_surface method 
> that is described in the VBM pages):
>
> Boesen K, Rehm K, Schaper K, Stoltzner S, Woods R, Luders E, 
> Rottenberg D.
> Quantitative comparison of four brain extraction algorithms.
> Neuroimage. 2004 Jul;22(3):1255-61.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jason
>
>>              Best,
>>                    DDW
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-users@bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-users
>

--Apple-Mail-26--75548820
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=US-ASCII

Hello Jason, Andrew, Dylan, and everyone, also here's another new
paper comparing skull-stripping methods, it also combines results of
them all using a statistical key (a nice idea, as there was not one
algorithm that was uniformly better than all others): 

<underline><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><color><param>0000,3331,CCCA</param><x-tad-bigger>Rex
DE, Shattuck DW, Woods RP, Narr KL, Luders E, Rehm K, Stolzner SE,
Rottenberg DA, Toga AW.</x-tad-bigger></color></fontfamily></underline><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><bigger><bigger>

A meta-algorithm for brain extraction in MRI.</bigger></bigger><x-tad-bigger>

Neuroimage. 2004 Oct;23(2):625-37. </x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>

See you, 

Paul

http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/thompson.html


On Nov 16, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Jason Lerch wrote:


<excerpt>

On Nov 16, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Dylan WAGNER wrote:

<excerpt>



      Also thank you for the location of mincbet. So now I'm confronted

with three choices. Mincbet, skullstrip and the preprocessing method on

on the wiki page for VBM. It's a bloody buffet of skullstripping
methods!

Any reason why one would be better? The method on the VBM seems more

tailored to each individual subject, though longer to carry out.

</excerpt>

The basic answer: they all suck. I think that the method on the VBM
pages sucks least of the lot, but I know that others disagree. There
has never been a study which compared all these methods, though this
paper here might help (it does not compare our cortical_surface method
that is described in the VBM pages):


Boesen K, Rehm K, Schaper K, Stoltzner S, Woods R, Luders E,
Rottenberg D.

Quantitative comparison of four brain extraction algorithms.

Neuroimage. 2004 Jul;22(3):1255-61.


Cheers,


Jason


<excerpt>             Best,

                   DDW


</excerpt>

_______________________________________________

MINC-users@bic.mni.mcgill.ca

http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-users


</excerpt>
--Apple-Mail-26--75548820--