Skip to content

New function DWI::stash_DW_scheme()#774

Merged
Lestropie merged 2 commits intotag_0.3.16from
basis_dw_scheme
Dec 8, 2016
Merged

New function DWI::stash_DW_scheme()#774
Lestropie merged 2 commits intotag_0.3.16from
basis_dw_scheme

Conversation

@Lestropie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@Lestropie Lestropie commented Sep 5, 2016

Finishing off #375

Took the liberty of ensuring that it's the gradient table used in processing that gets captured in the header, not just what was stored in the header (which could have been either absent or over-ruled by providing such information at the command-line).

Alternative function / keyval naming suggestions welcome.

@Lestropie
New function DWI::stash_dw_scheme()
b0eafed 
This function takes the gradient table to be used in a DWI processing application (whether loaded from the image header or the command-line), stores it in a new Header keyval entry 'basis_dw_scheme', and erases the DW scheme from the header (since it will no longer be applicable to the output volume(s)).
Closes #375.
@jdtournier
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jdtournier commented Sep 5, 2016

Sounds good. Not sure about the key basis_dw_scheme though: the word 'basis' has other connotations, and doesn't really convey the sense that these were the directions used when processing the images. I'd rather use something like dw_scheme_as_processed or similar...

@thijsdhollander
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

thijsdhollander commented Sep 5, 2016

original_dw_scheme, or maybe acquired_dw_scheme ? I agree with "basis" potentially being confusing. I may be missing the message/point of dw_scheme_as_processed as well though: that sounds as if the DW scheme has been processed...? 😕

@Lestropie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Lestropie commented Sep 5, 2016

utilized_dw_scheme? Or I'm happy with original_dw_scheme.

@jdtournier
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jdtournier commented Sep 5, 2016

Yes, dw_scheme_as_processed might give slightly the wrong impression. I was shooting for dw_scheme_as_used_in_processing, but that's getting a little long-winded... Rob's utilised_dw_scheme is closer to the mark. How about dw_scheme_used...?

@Lestropie Lestropie mentioned this pull request Sep 23, 2016
Merged
@Lestropie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Lestropie commented Dec 6, 2016

prior_dw_scheme?

@jdtournier
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

jdtournier commented Dec 7, 2016

Happy with prior_dw_scheme.

@thijsdhollander
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

thijsdhollander commented Dec 8, 2016

Sound good to me too. 👍

@Lestropie Lestropie changed the base branch from master to tag_0.3.16 December 8, 2016 01:05
@Lestropie Lestropie merged commit 9e8138c into tag_0.3.16 Dec 8, 2016
@Lestropie Lestropie deleted the basis_dw_scheme branch December 8, 2016 01:12
@Lestropie Lestropie mentioned this pull request Jul 14, 2017
Merged
@Lestropie Lestropie mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2019
Merged
@Lestropie Lestropie mentioned this pull request Jul 4, 2019
Merged
@Lestropie Lestropie mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2021
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@Lestropie @jdtournier @thijsdhollander