2020
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4390433
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

nipy/heudiconv v0.9.0

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
3

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This request was limited to 3 Tesla (3T) scans, as the department deployed a harmonized MPRAGE T1-weighted (T1w) sequence for routine brain MRIs across its 3T clinical scanners beginning in 2008 (see Supplementary Materials). The scans were organized into BIDS format (Gorgolowski et al 2016) using heudiconv (Halchenko et al 2020) and filtered according to their metadata using CuBIDS (Covitz et al 2022) to isolate non-contrast high-resolution T1w scans (<=1×1×1mm; N=444 scans), then were manually graded by two raters to remove low-quality scans (e.g, scans with significant motion artifact) (Rosen et al 2018; Bedford et al 2022) (N=372 scans). An overview of data curation and quality control is provided in Figure 1 with complete details in Supplemental Materials.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This request was limited to 3 Tesla (3T) scans, as the department deployed a harmonized MPRAGE T1-weighted (T1w) sequence for routine brain MRIs across its 3T clinical scanners beginning in 2008 (see Supplementary Materials). The scans were organized into BIDS format (Gorgolowski et al 2016) using heudiconv (Halchenko et al 2020) and filtered according to their metadata using CuBIDS (Covitz et al 2022) to isolate non-contrast high-resolution T1w scans (<=1×1×1mm; N=444 scans), then were manually graded by two raters to remove low-quality scans (e.g, scans with significant motion artifact) (Rosen et al 2018; Bedford et al 2022) (N=372 scans). An overview of data curation and quality control is provided in Figure 1 with complete details in Supplemental Materials.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The scans were converted from DICOM format to NIFTI format using the tool heudiconv (version 0.9.0) (Halchenko et al 2020) and organized according to the Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) standard (Gorgolowski et al 2016) using the CuBIDS tool developed by Covitz et al (Covitz et al 2022). CuBIDs was then used to filter the data based on parameters in the metadata.…”
Section: Supplementary Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All sMRI (T1w-MP-RAGE), dWI (diffusion weighted imaging) and rsFMRI (10 minutes EPI for XXY and XYY; 5 minutes and 15 seconds EPI for T21) data were gathered using one MR750 3-Tesla scanner (General Electric, MA) for XXY and XYY and another GE 3-Tesla scanner for T21 with identical sequences within each case-control aneuploidy cohort ( Supplementary Materials ). For each cohort, T1w MRI and rs-fMRI scans were converted from DICOM to Nifti and organized according to the Brain Imaging Data Structure 31 (BIDS) using heudiconv 32 . Each imaging modality was preprocessed as summarized below, with full methods in Supplemental Materials .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various BIDS conversion command-line tools 3 to support researchers have been made available, ranging from institute- or study-specific solutions, to community developed software, and from poorly documented tools to more advanced packages with programmatic interfaces. Among these, many use the well-known dcm2niix converter ( Li et al, 2016 ) under the hood to perform the actual data conversion, such as the popular HeuDiConv ( Halchenko et al, 2020 ), dcm2bids, 4 and the related bidskit 5 tools. HeuDiConv is a powerful tool but requires Python programming skills, albeit basic, and its rule-base heuristics design has a relatively steep learning curve and requires technical knowledge about the data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%