Hi Everyone,based on some recent discussions in the niQC SIG regarding phantom data in QA and beyond (see the video below), we feel there might need to a be a BEP to include phantom data directly into BIDSOne main reason is to get around the limitation of not being able to share dates to help match between subjects and the corresponding phantom data (e.g. from the day of subject's scanning). It appears to me that packaging them together while sharing, if possible, would get around that limitation while retaining the correspondence. Does that make sense?If some or all of this functionality exists already, let us know. Or if we need to consider a new BEP to achieve it?PS: we have an exciting meeting today in an hour (tuesday 11am EDT) focused on phantoms: tinyurl.com/QualityConvs (and other exciting talks in the future).. join us if you are interested!Thanks,Pradeep--
We are all colleagues working together to shape brain imaging for tomorrow, please be respectful, gracious, and patient with your fellow group members.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bids-discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bids-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bids-discussion/22f076e4-e636-47de-bbca-e16bc22b92a6n%40googlegroups.com.
Was trying to think of where this could fit in a BIDS dataset but Robert's suggestions seems a good starting point.
Not sure this requires a full fledged BEP if a pull-request will do, but this may be because I am not seeing the specifics issues.
If dates in the scans.tsv or sessions.tsv have to "anonymised" then I suspect they should be offsetted by the same amount for phantom and the subject data.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bids-discussion/40818C75-1B36-496B-87ED-459E7C51A9F3%40donders.ru.nl.
The issue is that one phantom BIDS dataset can fit many
human/animal BIDS dataset, so we don't want to store many times
the same data inside other datserts with specific subjects - while
Robert suggestion works that is too cumbersome - also fMRI phantom
is not on a daily basis (mote like once a week).
We would therefore rather create BIDS phantom datasets and human datasets can refer to it and conversely (while the later might not be needed, depends if we want to keep bidirectionality) - using interpolation of data (say a sine overtime) QC from phantom can be regressed out on group analyses.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bids-discussion/153f7118-e961-b5b5-6190-fa11007e98ce%40gmail.com.
-- Dr Cyril Pernet, PhD, OHBM fellow, SSI fellow Neurobiology Research Unit, Building 8057, Blegdamsvej 9 Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark wamc...@gmail.com https://cpernet.github.io/ https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4010-4632
Ha I see.
If I am understanding correctly, my gut feeling is that there is a PR in the pipeline that might help formalize reference to BIDS dataset outside of the current dataset: https://github.com/bids-standard/bids-specification/pull/820
But I can see that there will be an issue if you want to:
yes I think we should try to build a repo as for humans and use
the updated common principles from that PR (to be merged?) -- and
see how it goes from there
Empty room MEG can be acquired for each subject, while we record
an MRI phantom once a week and those data should be associated
with many subjects across multiple studies - very different
setting. While as an exercise I agree we can try to prepare
something like an empty room recording, I do not agree with the
concept since it won't generalize to want we want to achieve with
the MRI phantom.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bids-discussion/5231d54d-9c23-4f10-be79-bb0c3c225371n%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bids-discussion/CAKbQVZGBzN8pypO9z6oOLHGYq6NHPu_h80e4wRDYDXx8ObigAg%40mail.gmail.com.