Description

There might be an issue with FABBER quantification of CBF. Specifically, our M0 division and CBF scaling seems to work for BASIL, but FABBER probably behaves differently resulting in incorrect scaling of CBF data processed by FABBER.

We have to investigate if this is because we do BASIL/FABBER scalings differently. Or if there's a difference in FSL that we don't take into account.

Compared to Amnah's niftis:
-> Decoded images look the same
-> ftiss (after Fabber with HAD4+HAD8 concatenated) look the same
-> Only CBF of the concatenation processing (after dividing ftiss by M0) differ...

Tasks

• Fix TEs for single-TE for FABBER - @jan-petr
• Compare BASIL with FABBER of HAD8 and HAD4-singleTE in Amnah's version - @jan-petr
• Compare Amnah's FABBER of HAD8, HAD4-multiTE, HAD4-singleTE - @jan-petr
• Compare Amnah's FABBER of HAD8, HAD4-multiTE, HAD4-singleTE - @BeatrizPadrela
• Final comparison of concatenated DEBBIE with Amnah's results including Tex - @jan-petr
• Final comparison of concatenated DEBBIE with Amnah's results including Tex - @BeatrizPadrela

Release notes

Report together with #1471 and #1469.