Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeIn praise of progress
Posted by GedR on 20 Jul 2012 at 17:31 GMT
Similar points have been made on the FreeSurfer mailing list already, but I think it's worth repeating here: results should be expected to change significantly when new major revisions of software are released -- otherwise, how can developers ever make improvements?
Similarly, segmentations by expert neuroradiologists should be expected to change when new improved manual tracing protocols are developed.
Differences between HP and Mac, or between Mac versions are more worrying, but note that the article says:
"for the volumes, significant differences were derived only for the cross-version contrasts v5.0.0 vs. the two earlier versions"
"in case of the HP vs. Mac and Mac OSX 10.6 vs. OSX 10.5 contrasts, significant CT differences were found for versions v4.3.1 and v4.5.0, whereas no significant CT differences were present at all for version v5.0.0."
My reading of this is that for the latest version of FreeSurfer tested here, there are no statistically significant differences in either volume or cortical thickness due to Mac/HP or OSX10.5/6 -- another form of progress!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22037420