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
When the switch to charm was made in the previous major revision, the pipeline was adjusted to accept skull indices instead of the new layer labels to save time.
This can lead (and has led) to issues by using the incorrect layer labels.
To prevent further confusion in the future, I suggest to adjust all the code to accept the updated layer labels from charm instead of the layer indices.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
MaCuinea
added a commit
to MaCuinea/PRESTUS
that referenced
this issue
Jul 27, 2023
The segmentation in SimNibs is now done using Charm instead of headreco. Therefore, the labels of every tissue are different. This is fixed and the code is also made more robust, so less hardcoded label values.
The current master still has quite a few hardcoded values, see e.g., this block.
I am currently working on a solution. This partially arises from how the specification is designed: parameters.layer_labels specifies the layers that are to-be-modelled, and this specification is sequential. If we would specify an additional csf field in the end, it may interfere with the more global water layer that we would like to model.
Beyond the obvious solution of requiring the standard layer specifiation, my current solution relies on an additional config field "seg_labels":
seg_labels:
csf: [3]
bonemask: [1,2,3,4,7,8,9]
If this field is absent, I throw a warning that hardcoded values are being used.
I now also export niftis of density and soundspeed, as those provide critical checks of whether everything has been properly implemented before running acoustics & heating.
When the switch to charm was made in the previous major revision, the pipeline was adjusted to accept skull indices instead of the new layer labels to save time.
This can lead (and has led) to issues by using the incorrect layer labels.
To prevent further confusion in the future, I suggest to adjust all the code to accept the updated layer labels from
charm
instead of the layer indices.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: