this is for holding javascript data
Anisha Keshavan added Initially_I_had_excluded_a__.tex
over 8 years ago
Commit id: 586c70740f90e4f6d4c02bd0552241335f428d57
deletions | additions
diff --git a/Initially_I_had_excluded_a__.tex b/Initially_I_had_excluded_a__.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..511cc6c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Initially_I_had_excluded_a__.tex
...
Initially I had excluded a few scans that had small amounts of dura classified as brain at the top of the head. I then tried including those scans to see if it affected the results (in particular, $CV_a$, as this is the most important for power calculations) and found that including these subjects did not change the results. I have now included the results from revised dataset in the manuscript. For the new QC procedure, I followed your advice to look at eTIV. This makes more sense because this is the one of the first steps in recon-all and a bad registration to the talairach template could lead to innacurate segmentations overall. I left out 1 scan from 1 subject from sites 4,6 and 11 that had very bad coregistration. From sites 4 and 6, I left out one scan of the same subject, and at site 11 it was a different subject. Other left out scans were due to time constraints (we didn't have time to scan all the subjects), one scan was left out because part of the head was not acquired (possibly the files were corrupted), and one scan was left out because it was an identical copy of the first instead of a rescan (perhaps a problem with transferring data). I've added a column in the acquisition tables to reflect how many actual scans were acquired at each site.
