Closed sandrinebedard closed 3 years ago
hum... could be aliasing of fat signal and/or motion. But i'm not sure i would necessarily remove it, as long as the output segmentation is correct: we do "see" the spinal cord between c2-c3, no?
But i'm not sure i would necessarily remove it, as long as the output segmentation is correct: we do "see" the spinal cord between c2-c3, no?
Yes, I agree for that image, but it maybe was not the best example 😬, my bad, I agree we can keep it. Some others also have motion artefact in addition. I'll check again with the segmentations for these images!
I find it ambiguous to know if we have enough slices to compute cord CSA: e.g:
in the case showed in https://github.com/sct-pipeline/ukbiobank-spinalcord-csa/pull/60#issuecomment-818246380, i would say there are not enough slices
@jcohenadad I removed the images from the list according your remark in https://github.com/sct-pipeline/ukbiobank-spinalcord-csa/pull/60#issuecomment-818228788 and kept the images that we would not have enough slices with the segmentation for cord CSA, everything should be ok now
Description
This PR adds subjects to exclude in
exclude.yml
. The main causes for exclusion are that the FOV doesn't cover C2-C3 and poor data quality. I observed the following artefact multiple times: (sub-1132718_T1w.nii.gz)I am not sure what could be the cause here.