You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Continuing on our "quick" https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1131 publication/finding. I think we should take some published study (or better multiple) with data available, and ideally with a reproducible analysis workflow available and see if addition of such variables as "SAR", "ImageOrientationPatient" which either were extracted/placed into sidecar .json files (or original DICOMs still available and could be extracted) into the model significantly effect the higher-level analyses results of the study.
Those properties are present in DICOMs and often extracted (e.g. if using heudiconv with dcm2niix) and placed into BIDS side car files
a list of openneuro datasets having SAR and/or ImageOrientationPatient
The simplest kind would be some analysis on anatomical or DWI per subject, so there is just a single input data file at higher level analysis. If it is an fMRI study with multiple runs, those might be incorporated into lower level model only if there is a large number of runs per subject (unlikely), but as for an initial approximation, we could take average in values between all runs for those and introduce them into higher level analysis. After all I expect SAR be comparable, and ImageOrientationPatient nearly the same across runs (if subjects were not taken out from the MRI between runs, and/or FOV was transferred across sequences).
Note: ImageOrientationPatient is likely a correlated with participant demographics (age, weight and gender). If those were not modeled (unlikely) in the study, those might need to be added into the model first. That all also depends on the particulars of the study and its claims. SAR itself might be a correlate of demographics (weight in particular), didn't check...
Based on our results in aforementioned paper, my hypotheses would be
those additional "properties of the scanning session" would provide stat significant explanation of variance in the results
by providing better explanatory power, we should see a better detection (more supra-thresholded results) in case of "spatial" results and normalized effect sizes overall
Additional possible observations/points to keep in mind
data preprocessing and analysis pipelines differ in their ability to account for "noise" and homogeneity in data. So it might well be that my hypotheses from above would not find support in some studies using more "robust" pipelines than the others. Not sure if we would be able to explore the "spectrum" of pipelines here, it would all depend on sample studies we decide to tackle.
this idea might not be novel at all and some studies might have already done something along the lines. Would be nice to discover/identify them
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi Parteek, like I said in another issue, please reach out to and confirm with INCF directly. If they are, they would likely refer you to participating mentors/projects, who are often great IMHO. We have no knowledge of their plans.
Continuing on our "quick" https://f1000research.com/articles/9-1131 publication/finding. I think we should take some published study (or better multiple) with data available, and ideally with a reproducible analysis workflow available and see if addition of such variables as "SAR", "ImageOrientationPatient" which either were extracted/placed into sidecar .json files (or original DICOMs still available and could be extracted) into the model significantly effect the higher-level analyses results of the study.
Those properties are present in DICOMs and often extracted (e.g. if using heudiconv with dcm2niix) and placed into BIDS side car files
a list of openneuro datasets having SAR and/or ImageOrientationPatient
Note:
ImageOrientationPatient
is likely a correlated with participant demographics (age, weight and gender). If those were not modeled (unlikely) in the study, those might need to be added into the model first. That all also depends on the particulars of the study and its claims. SAR itself might be a correlate of demographics (weight in particular), didn't check...Based on our results in aforementioned paper, my hypotheses would be
Additional possible observations/points to keep in mind
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: