<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jan Tillema <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jan.Tillema@cchmc.org">Jan.Tillema@cchmc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="margin: 4px 4px 1px; font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div>I have a similar question. </div>
<div>We have dataset of subjects before/after intervention, we have 15 dir DTI and 3D T1 data (GE) with same parameters both times, but orientation not exactly the same (clinical protocol). The brains are not normal at baseline with enlarged ventricles that may have changed minimally (due to treatment, e.g. smaller size). Normalization is not a possibility d/t abnormalities on brain to begin with, we just want to compare before/after. We are investigating the effect on white matter and would like to get best approach to compare basic measurement before/after. We have manual (blinded) ROI showing differences before/after, but want to make sure we are in the exact same ROI. To co-register seems the best way, but tricky as the structure of the brain is not exactly the same. Any suggestions?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) would it be best to co-register DTI to T1 at both time points and then to co-register T1 in time point A to B followed by change of DTI with same matrix? If so, I assume this would have to be done with DiffeoMap, what would be the steps to do so?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Unless there is a reason that you want T1-DTI be registered (e.g. ROI drawn in T1, FA measured in DTI), I think you can directly register DTI to DTI. Yes, DiffeoMap should be able to do it.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="margin: 4px 4px 1px; font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div>2) is co-registration to "dangerous" for bias as there is the possibility that the brain is not exactly the same before and after (ventricle size change)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>First you have to decide if you want only linear transformation adjusting the overall head positions or do non-linear to remove the tissue deformation due to the surgery. I suspect you want the former (I think the latter is difficult). <br>
<br>Linear transformation is mostly driven by brain boundary. So, you can assume that as long as the tissue deformation is mostly inside the brain and the brain boundary shape remains the same, the linear transformation should be able to match the two brains. However, we have seen not-so-perfect linear registration even between two images from the same person. Reason could be; the initial alignment was way off, there is an intense sinus signal in one of them, etc. In the end, it is your subjective judgment if the linear registration is satisfactory. If there is a good quantitative way to judge the alignment, we would have used such a metric to drive the linear registration.<br>
<br>In your case, you may want to try the landmark function of DiffeoMap. You need at least 3 point landmarks to define the corresponding structures between the two images. Unfortunately there are not many point landmarks inside the brain. The exceptions are AC and PC. The third point could be some easy-to-define structures in the brainstem at the mid-sagittal level such as the junction of the pons and midbrain. If you can clearly find these 3 points, place these landmarks in both images and use rigid alignment. <br>
<br>Let us know if this approach works.<br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="margin: 4px 4px 1px; font: 10pt Tahoma;">
<div></div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>JMT</div>
<div><br>>>> susumu mori <<a href="mailto:susumu@mri.jhu.edu" target="_blank">susumu@mri.jhu.edu</a>> 7/28/2010 3:23 PM >>><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>Usually, we first calculate tensor and then register the tensor maps with proper reorientation, rather than register the raw DWIs with rotated gradient tables.<br>
<br>It is possible to do your approach, but tensor registration would be easier, I think.<br><br></div></div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Rajagopalan, Venkateswaran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rajagov2@ccf.org" target="_blank">rajagov2@ccf.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
<p><font size="2">Dear All,<br><br>We have diffusion data set acquired with 5 trails/repetitions(in single time point/cross sectional) for each and every subject. After eddy current correction i would like to do gradient table rotation. I am registering all the 5 trails to the b0 image. Since after eddy/motion correction i have affine matrix for all the 5 trails i.e i have 13*5 affine matrices so I am wondering which set of affine matrices i.e first 13 affine matrices or affine matrices from second trail/repetition should i use to rotate my gradient table.<br>
<br>Thanks<br></font></p>
<p></p><pre>===================================
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="5" color="green" face="Webdings"><span style="font-family: Webdings; color: green; font-size: 18pt;">P</span></font><font size="2" color="navy" face="Calibri"><span style="font-family: Calibri; color: navy; font-size: 10pt;"> </span></font><font size="1" color="green" face="Arial"><span style="font-family: Arial; color: green; font-size: 7pt;">Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail</span></font></p>
Cleveland Clinic is ranked one of the top hospitals
in America by U.S.News & World Report (2009).
Visit us online at <a href="http://www.clevelandclinic.org" target="_blank">http://www.clevelandclinic.org</a> for
a complete listing of our services, staff and
locations.
Confidentiality Note: This message is intended for use
only by the individual or entity to which it is addressed
and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for
delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please
contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in
its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. Thank you.
</pre></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>mristudio-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mristudio-users@mristudio.org" target="_blank">mristudio-users@mristudio.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>
Unsubscribe, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org" target="_blank">mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
mristudio-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:mristudio-users@mristudio.org">mristudio-users@mristudio.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/" target="_blank">http://lists.mristudio.org/mailman/listinfo/</a><br>
Unsubscribe, send a blank email to: <a href="mailto:mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org">mristudio-users-unsubscribe@mristudio.org</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>