Grid Computing Application for Brain Magnetic Resonance Image Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work emphasizes the use of grid computing and web technology for automatic post-processing of brain magnetic resonance images (MRI) in the context of neuropsychiatric (Alzheimer's disease) research. Post-acquisition image processing is achieved through the interconnection of several individual processes into pipelines. Each process has input and output data ports, options and execution parameters, and performs single tasks such as: a) extracting individual image attributes (e.g. dimensions, orientation, center of mass), b) performing image transformations (e.g. scaling, rotation, skewing, intensity standardization, linear and non-linear registration), c) performing image statistical analyses, and d) producing the necessary quality control images and/or files for user review. The pipelines are built to perform specific sequences of tasks on the alphanumeric data and MRIs contained in our database.\n\nThe web application is coded in PHP and allows the creation of scripts to create, store and execute pipelines and their instances either on our local cluster or on high-performance computing platforms. To run an instance on an external cluster, the web application opens a communication tunnel through which it copies the necessary files, submits the execution commands and collects the results.\n\nWe present result on system tests for the processing of a set of 821 brain MRIs from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative study via a nonlinear registration pipeline composed of 10 processes. Our results show successful execution on both local and external clusters, and a 4-fold increase in performance if using the external cluster. However, the latter's performance does not scale linearly as queue waiting times and execution overhead increase with the number of tasks to be executed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".