The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

139 protocols using matlab 2020a

1

Structural Brain Differences in Depression

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The structural data were preprocessed using the Computational Anatomy Toolbox (CAT12) implemented in Matlab 2020a (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). The default settings of CAT12 were applied for spatial registration, segmentation and normalization with modulation. Normalized gray matter tissue volumes were smoothed with an 8 mm FWHM Gaussian kernel. After preprocessing, data were analyzed using the SPM12 toolbox implemented in Matlab 2020a (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). To compare GM volumes between the groups (HC, AD, PPD), a univariate ANOVA was conducted controlling for age and total intracranial volume (TIV). T-Contrasts were used for pair-wise group comparisons. An exact permutation-based cluster threshold (p < 0.05) was applied combined with an uncorrected threshold of p < 0.01. In addition, we explored if any of the contrasts survived whole-brain voxel-wise family-wise error (FWE) correction (p < 0.05).
Additionally, we explored if the structural data at baseline correlated with EPDS at T4 as a continuous measurement of depressive symptomatology (in contrast to a binary assignment based on the diagnosis). Therefore, a multiple regression analysis was conducted using EPDS score at T4 and age as well as TIV as covariates. A whole-brain voxel-wise FWE correction (p < 0.05) was applied.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Radiomics Feature Extraction and Selection

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To minimize the variability of extracted features, the Hounsfield units (HU) for each set of CT images were rescaled to the range from −1024 HU to 3071 HU. The nearly raw raster data format was converted from CT images and processed by MATLAB 2020 a (The MathWorks). Feature extraction was performed using PyRadiomics. The classes of features were selected from the PyRadiomics library, including the first-order statistics, the shape-based parameters and the second-order texture features of Grey-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix, Grey-Level Run Length Matrix, Grey-Level Size Zone Matrix and Grey-Level Difference Matrix. Finally, a total of 107 radiomics features were extracted from each lesion ROI. To identify the uncorrelated features with maximum relevance, feature selection was performed using support vector machine (SVM) with the Gaussian kernel. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for the selected radiomics features were calculated.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Resting-state fMRI Preprocessing and Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Resting-state fMRI (rsfMRI) were preprocessed using SPM12 toolbox24 implemented in Matlab 2020a (MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). Images were realigned, unwarped, and co-registered to the structural image, spatially normalized using structural information, and smoothed by a Gaussian convolution kernel with 6 mm full-width at half maximum (FWHM). A gray matter (GM) mask was applied to reduce all analyses to GM tissue. Images were further processed in the CONN toolbox version 18.b25 (link). First principal components for white matter (WM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) signals as well as 24 motion parameters (Friston-24) were regressed out before computing voxel- and region-based measures of interest. Global Correlation (GCor) was calculated as the average of bivariate correlations between the BOLD signal of a given voxel and every other voxel25 (link). Integrated Local Correlation (LCor) was computed as the average bivariate correlation between each voxel and its neighboring voxels weighted by a Gaussian convolution with 6 mm FWHM26 (link). Fractional Amplitude of Low Frequency Fluctuations (fALFF) was calculated at each voxel as the root mean square of the BOLD signal amplitude in the analysis frequency band (here 0.01 – 0.08 Hz) divided by the amplitude in the entire frequency band27 (link).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Individualized Calibration and Recall Accuracy

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All analyses were completed using Matlab 2020a (MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA). Statistical analyses were conducted using linear mixed-effects models (fitglme function in Matlab), including a random intercept for participants. F-test and t-tests were used to analyze fixed effects (using the anova function of the GeneralizedLinearMixedModel class in Matlab).
Accuracy in Individualized Calibration and Individualized Calibration Validation trials was registered by the experimenter online after each trial. In five cases (0.1% of trials), the experimenter indicated that they were not sure about the participant’s last response, making the program ignore the last trial.
To mitigate spelling challenges, only the first 4 letters of each word were required in Recall. Responses were evaluated manually offline. Nonetheless, there were still twelve cases that were considered spelling mistakes (e.g., ‘jeas’ instead of ‘jeans' and ‘herm' instead of 'harm’ for 'harmonica’) and one case of a naming mistake (‘plan' presumably for ‘plane’, instead of 'airplane') that were considered a correct response.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Multivariate Temporal Response Function Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All analyses are conducted in MATLAB 2020a (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA). We used the MATLAB toolbox Fieldtrip (Oostenveld et al., 2011 ), the multivariate temporal response function (MTRF) toolbox version 2.3 (Crosse et al., 2016 (link)), as well as two custom-made scripts which demonstrate the encoding and decoding model approach, respectively.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

In Vitro Data Analysis Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The data from the in vitro experiments were imported, analyzed, and visualized using MATLAB 2020a (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). In order to facilitate visualization, we have created three regions of interest, one for each tube, considering the center axial slice of the volume and the time courses from the voxels within each ROI were averaged generating three time courses.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Automated Quantitative Metabolic Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
We processed spectroscopic data in MatLab 2020a (9.8, MathWorks, Inc.) with an automated custom written post-processing pipeline incorporating Gannet28 (link) (ver 3.1) and MR libs (https://github.com/chenkonturek/MRS_MRI_libs) software parts. We reconstructed the non-water-suppressed frequency-aligned measurement series as described previously6 (link),27 (link) and applied Hankel-Lanczos singular value decomposition (HLSVD) residual water suppression and apodization filter (BW = 1 Hz) before quantification by LCModel29 (link) (ver 6.3–1N). Metabolite concentration values are referenced to the voxel’s internal water concentration taking into consideration a full tissue and relaxation correction according to Gasparovic et al30 (link),31 (link).
The basis set for spectral fitting included the following metabolites: N-acetyl-aspartate and N-acetyl-aspartyl-glutamate (NAA + NAAG = tNAA), GSH, glutamate and glutamine (Glu + Gln = Glx), glycerophosphochline and phosphocholine (GPC + PCh = tCho), Cr, scyllo-Inositol (sI) and myo-Inositol (mI). Metabolites were included based on the MRS consensus recommendations32 (link),33 (link). All MR spectroscopy acquisitions were performed by a trained spectroscopist (last author with 8 years of experience). Data analysis were performed by using an automated post-processing pipeline.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Denoising Functional Connectivity Artifacts

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Represents the correlation between FC and in‐scanner head motion (mFD) since nonneuronal fluctuations can increase the apparent FC between regions by introducing spurious common variance across time series. Here, we calculated Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) using MATLAB's corr function (MATLAB 2020a, The MathWorks, Inc.) between each pair of ROIs FC and the mFD across patients. Then, we compared the proportion of edges where this QC‐FC correlation was statistically significant, as well as the median absolute QC‐FC correlation after applying each denoising pipeline. Higher QC‐FC (either the proportion of significant correlations or the absolute r‐value) represents the inability of a pipeline to mitigate noise in FC.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Choroidal Metrics Statistical Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
MATLAB (MATLAB 2020a; The MathWorks, Inc.) was used for statistical analysis. Normality of the data was tested with the Lilliefors test. For the analysis of topographical distribution, measurements from all nine scans were averaged per patient and are presented as a median and interquartile range. The quartile-based coefficient of variation39 (CV) was calculated (equation 5) where Q25 and Q75 denote the 25th and 75th quantiles of the distribution.
CV=Q75-Q25Q75+Q25×100.    Correlations of the choroidal parameters with AEL were performed using Spearman rank correlation.40 (link) The coefficient of repeatability (CR) from nonnormal data was derived for each ETDRS region as explained elsewhere.41 ,42 (link) In short, the median of each of the three measurements per day and its difference to the overall mean across the 3 days were calculated. Subsequently, the resulting deltas were evaluated in a cumulative distribution function. The 95% limits of the cumulative distribution function were determined and multiplied by 3/2 as a correction factor for centered data. The CR was considered half the length of the 95% interval. It is noteworthy that only intersession but not intrasession repeatability was considered in the analysis, to reflect most studies that investigate choroidal metrics in an intersession rather than intrasession (consecutive) manner.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Comparative Analysis of Retinal Curvature

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Data analysis was carried out with the help of MATLAB (MATLAB 2020a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). Normal distribution was ensured with the Lilliefors test [25 (link)]. A t-test was performed in addition to Bland–Altman analysis [26 (link)] and the calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1)) [27 (link)] in order to investigate the statistical differences and agreement between the OCT- and PRX-based retinal curvatures. Bivariate correlation analysis was performed with Pearson correlation [28 ]. Statistical results were interpreted as significant in the case that p < 0.05.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!