Heads in the Cloud: A Primer on Neuroimaging Applications of High Performance Computing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With larger data sets and more sophisticated analyses, it is becoming increasingly common for neuroimaging researchers to push (or exceed) the limitations of standalone computer workstations. Nonetheless, although high-performance computing platforms such as clusters, grids and clouds are already in routine use by a small handful of neuroimaging researchers to increase their storage and/or computational power, the adoption of such resources by the broader neuroimaging community remains relatively uncommon. Therefore, the goal of the current manuscript is to: 1) inform prospective users about the similarities and differences between computing clusters, grids and clouds; 2) highlight their main advantages; 3) discuss when it may (and may not) be advisable to use them; 4) review some of their potential problems and barriers to access; and finally 5) give a few practical suggestions for how interested new users can start analyzing their neuroimaging data using cloud resources. Although the aim of cloud computing is to hide most of the complexity of the infrastructure management from end-users, we recognize that this can still be an intimidating area for cognitive neuroscientists, psychologists, neurologists, radiologists, and other neuroimaging researchers lacking a strong computational background. Therefore, with this in mind, we have aimed to provide a basic introduction to cloud computing in general (including some of the basic terminology, computer architectures, infrastructure and service models, etc.), a practical overview of the benefits and drawbacks, and a specific focus on how cloud resources can be used for various neuroimaging applications.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".