Skip to content

Conversation

@sandrinebedard
Copy link
Member

@sandrinebedard sandrinebedard commented Mar 11, 2025

Description

This PR updates spinal cord segmentations of T2w images with the contrast-agnostic 3.1 version. Visual QC was done to assess the quality of the segmentations, but no manual correction was done.

It only adds the segmentations for subject that don't have mild compression, n=203 (as marked in participants.tsv).

These segmentations were used to computed normative values in spinalcordtoolbox/PAM50-normalized-metrics#20

We should create another release of the dataset when this PR is merged.

@sandrinebedard sandrinebedard marked this pull request as ready for review March 12, 2025 14:13
@valosekj valosekj changed the title Update spinal cord seg of T2w with contrast-agnostic v3.0 Update spinal cord seg of T2w with contrast-agnostic v3.1 Mar 12, 2025
@valosekj
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @sandrinebedard, LGTM!

It only adds the segmentations for subject that don't have mild compression, n=203 (as marked in participants.tsv).

Yeah, so this means that the other subjects (those with mild compression) still have cord segmented using sct_deepseg_sc. But as the segmentation method is tracked using JSON sidecars and all segmentations were QCed anyway, I hope it's okay.

@sandrinebedard
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah, so this means that the other subjects (those with mild compression) still have cord segmented using sct_deepseg_sc. But as the segmentation method is tracked using JSON sidecars and all segmentations were QCed anyway, I hope it's okay.

Yes! As discussed in person with @jcohenadad, since the segmentations done with sct_deepseg_sc were manually corrected, so we know the segmentation is accurate at the compression site, compared to the contrast-agnostic inference, it would be counterproductive to overwrite them!

Copy link
Member

@mguaypaq mguaypaq left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Git-annex looks fine, and bids-validator is irrelevant for derivatives/.

I noticed that some JSON files had duplicate lines, so I removed the duplicates:

    "SpatialReference": "orig",
    "SpatialReference": "orig",

@mguaypaq mguaypaq merged commit a073804 into master Mar 13, 2025
1 check failed
@mguaypaq mguaypaq deleted the sb/upadte_sc_seg_t2w branch March 13, 2025 18:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants