Dear all!
I am wondering if there is any change or alteration to the results of a dataset when computing the connectome matrix where there is a brainstem and cerebellum in one dataset and for controls from another dataset there is none of the previous.
Best,
Rene Andrade.
Hi,
The only thing I can think of is that the termination of streamlines in your control group that would normally be in the brainstem or cerebellum could end up elsewhere (and be assigned to some other node) due to the lack of coverage.
Don’t know if there is any good workaround. Maybe try using exclusion masks in the midbrain or lower midbrain and see if you can just lose the projection fibers for both groups.
Hope this helps,
Nick
let’s say I don’t do anything what would happen?
I think this would happen, and then you couldn’t tell whether differences are group-related or data-quality-related.
in which step is it that I have to use the exclusion mask? in this function ss3t_csd_beta1 perhaps? if I have done all the processing is there any shortcut if the step is to early to the later results?
I thought it was just that the region associated to the brainstem or cerebellum was not trustworthy and not that the whole data could be misleading.
I would really appreciate an answer on both of my previous questions. I need them to know how can I procceed on my project.
Hey @andraderenew ,
I don’t think all your data is misleading - only if there are regions close to where the streamlines would incorrectly terminate, this could be an issue.
I would use the exclusion mask during tractography, so that you have the same number of streamlines between the rest of the brain for both groups.
Hope this helps you to continue,
Nick
oh thank you very much!! it is very helpful indeed.