[MINC-users] PET analysis on MINC files

[Sylvain MILOT]

Hello Chris,

You're right in your assessment of dot support since I do not wear
that hat much anymore. The support I offer is limited to its usage
at large for both clinical and experimental use. I spend the rest of
my time doing sys admin work. I did have version 2.0 in the making but
haven't done any serious work on it for almost 2 years now. I would
like to complete it but time is hard to find. Even if version 2.0 was out
it would still be limited to GLIM (General LInear Model). Dr. Keith Worsley
told me it was possible to analyse PET data with his fMRIstats package and
I have also wanted to explore this ... my wishlist is at a standstill
unless I make time for it - this will be my year 2005 resolution! :-/
In the meantime I have to concentrate on my monday interview for jury duty -
on how to make myself unworthy for selection, so that it doesn't suck up 3
months of my life if not worse ... this is a scary thought ... not that I
wouldn't want to do my civic duty, but seriously who has time for this!
Needless to say this is not on my wishlist. I havent answered all of your
questions specifically but I think you get the general picture.

PS. I dont know much about FSL - I'll add that to my wishlist

PPS. dot is not available for linux although it could be, with some work -
     this was part of my dot 2.1 plan ... don't hold your breath ...

Sylvain

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Christopher Bailey wrote:

>
> Dear list,
>
> and PET-users in particular. I would be grateful for advice, comments,
> pointers, anything, on how best to analyse CBF "activation" studies
> (15-O-water).
>
> People here in Aarhus (DK) have been using dot since the mid 90's. I
> joined this year, after some experience in amongst others the FMRI
> world. It seems to me that dot has fallen a little out of date. We are
> running version 1.8.0, which according to the manual is from 1998. I
> take it dot is no longer supported?
>
> Though a t-test will always be a t-test, whatever the year, I would like
> to see us use the more advanced inference methods available in, for
> example, FSL, SPM and even FMRIstat. Is that in fact what is happening;
> MINC PET's convert their data into Analyze/NifTi and use e.g. SPM? Or is
> the community still sticking to dot?
>
> Personally, I like FSL (the filosophy of which does resemble that of
> dot, no?) and would like to use it both for FMRI and PET. However, I
> would prefer sticking to a single file format. I noticed Andrew has put
> some pressure on the Oxford guys to include MINC in the read/write file
> formats of FSL. As noted before on the list, they already have a
> skeleton of MINC routines in their IO library. Is it the Master Plan of
> the MINC Executive Decision Committee (!?!) to lobby the inclusion of
> MINC into, e.g., FSL (soon!), or is there an Alternative Plan to update
> dot to the status quo of analysis methods?
>
> Is there a version of dot anywhere that is (easily) compilable/compiled
> for linux?
>
> Best regards,
> Chris
>
> --
> Christopher Bailey <cjb@pet.auh.dk>
> PET Centre and
> Center for Functionally Integrative Neuroscience
> Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark
> http://www.cfin.au.dk/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MINC-users@bic.mni.mcgill.ca
> http://www.bic.mni.mcgill.ca/mailman/listinfo/minc-users
>

---
Sylvain Milot (sylvain@bic.mni.mcgill.ca)
              (trinity@bic.mni.mcgill.ca)
Brain Imaging Centre
Montreal Neurological Institute
Webster 2B, Room 208
Montreal, Qc., Canada, H3A 2B4
Phone  : (514) 398-4965, Fax: 398-8948
Mobile : (514) 712-1768
Office : 527 Pine, room 204