Add Fields request

[amanbadhwar]

Hi Roberto,

It would be very helpful if you could add the following fields to brainspell.

1. magnet strength
2. scanner manufacturer
3. age range

4. of groups (eg. patients vs controls)

5. of individuals per group

Thanks a bunch,
Aman

[r03ert0]

Hi Aman,

How would you use those fields in an analysis? (magnet strength or
manufacturer, for example). For selecting subsets of papers? I would like
to keep the amount of work I ask people as concise as possible...

For the groups, I think that we need to find an ontology to describe
subjects, relative to their sex, age, psychiatric conditions, etc. Do you
know of any ontology like this? It would be also nice to add probably an
ontology to describe the methodology. Like saying if it's VBM, taks-based
fMRI, rsfcMRI, etc. Do you know Satra? He could probably advice us on this.

best,
roberto

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:56 AM, AmanPreet Badhwar <[email protected]

wrote:

Hi Roberto,

It would be very helpful if you could add the following fields to
brainspell.

1. magnet strength
2. scanner manufacturer
3. age range

4. of groups (eg. patients vs controls)

5. of individuals per group

Thanks a bunch,
Aman

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#9.

[vsoch]

If you are looking for cognitive paradigm, the Cognitive Atlas (cognitiveatlas.org) has recently had a lot of fMRI paradigms added, and is open source in that any new paradigms could be added as needed. So while we don't have the course level of the imaging modality, it may be more informative to just have the task itself. We also have disorders that could be used to tag clinical groups.

[amanbadhwar]

Hi Roberto,

Regarding the first point. Yes it is for being able to look at subsets of paper.

I know of disease specific ontologies, but I can look into more general ones and get back to you.

A methodology ontology is a very good suggestion. I will discuss with Satra.

Thanks for your feedback. Will touch base soon.

Best,
Aman

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 15, 2015, at 7:30 AM, Roberto Toro [email protected] wrote:

Hi Aman,

How would you use those fields in an analysis? (magnet strength or
manufacturer, for example). For selecting subsets of papers? I would like
to keep the amount of work I ask people as concise as possible...

For the groups, I think that we need to find an ontology to describe
subjects, relative to their sex, age, psychiatric conditions, etc. Do you
know of any ontology like this? It would be also nice to add probably an
ontology to describe the methodology. Like saying if it's VBM, taks-based
fMRI, rsfcMRI, etc. Do you know Satra? He could probably advice us on this.

best,
roberto

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 3:56 AM, AmanPreet Badhwar <[email protected]

wrote:

Hi Roberto,

It would be very helpful if you could add the following fields to
brainspell.

1. magnet strength
2. scanner manufacturer
3. age range

4. of groups (eg. patients vs controls)

5. of individuals per group

Thanks a bunch,
Aman

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#9.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[amanbadhwar]

Hi Roberto,

Adding disorders from Cognitive Atlas is a good idea (thanks for the input Vanessa). It would be good to have disease severity as well (eg. mild, moderate, severe). There is the DSM 5 (http://www.terapiacognitiva.eu/dwl/dsm5/DSM-5.pdf) that is used by clinicians, but it is a printed book, so might be cumbersome.

[vsoch]

I don't think our disorders are updated for DSM-5 - there was an initiative (and still is) to take a more categorical approach with regard to clinical psychology and diagnosis (think of the RDoC matrix and dimensional discussion for DSM-5) but at the end of the day, diagnoses are still made in buckets, and that is how people publish on disorders. I'll look into this and get back to you.