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
HI,
I have some volumes ruined after running a defacing algorithm (before using mriqc), like this one:
I hoped that mriqc+mriqc_clf could help me identifying the failed ones, but unfortunately it's not the case (for example the volume of the image is classified as 0 with a probability of 0.47). Is it because the analysis performed by mriqc take into account only the parts that are not considered as background? Do you think that there is something I can do to detect the ruined volumes? Some metrics of mriqc that you would expect to be unusual in these cases or something like that? Just watching the graphs honestly I couldn't find any big differences from the values of other datasets that don't have this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Unfortunately, I don't think MRIQC will pick that up normally. However, @koriavinash1 and @shashankbansal6 and @jbwexler are working precisely on this problem.
HI,
I have some volumes ruined after running a defacing algorithm (before using mriqc), like this one:
I hoped that mriqc+mriqc_clf could help me identifying the failed ones, but unfortunately it's not the case (for example the volume of the image is classified as 0 with a probability of 0.47). Is it because the analysis performed by mriqc take into account only the parts that are not considered as background? Do you think that there is something I can do to detect the ruined volumes? Some metrics of mriqc that you would expect to be unusual in these cases or something like that? Just watching the graphs honestly I couldn't find any big differences from the values of other datasets that don't have this issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: