Performance evaluation of big data processing strategies for neuroimaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroimaging datasets are rapidly growing in size as a result of advancements in image acquisition methods, open-science and data sharing. However, the adoption of Big Data processing strategies by neuroimaging processing engines remains limited. Here, we evaluate three Big Data processing strategies (in-memory computing, data locality and lazy evaluation) on typical neuroimaging use cases, represented by the BigBrain dataset. We contrast these various strategies using Apache Spark and Nipype as our representative Big Data and neuroimaging processing engines, on Dell EMC's Top-500 cluster. Big Data thresholds were modeled by comparing the data-write rate of the application to the filesystem bandwidth and number of concurrent processes. This model acknowledges the fact that page caching provided by the Linux kernel is critical to the performance of Big Data applications. Results show that in-memory computing alone speeds-up executions by a factor of up to 1.6, whereas when combined with data locality, this factor reaches 5.3. Lazy evaluation strategies were found to increase the likelihood of cache hits, further improving processing time. Such important speed-up values are likely to be observed on typical image processing operations performed on images of size larger than 75GB. A ballpark speculation from our model showed that in-memory computing alone will not speed-up current functional MRI analyses unless coupled with data locality and processing around 280 subjects concurrently. Furthermore, we observe that emulating in-memory computing using in-memory file systems (tmpfs) does not reach the performance of an in-memory engine, presumably due to swapping to disk and the lack of data cleanup. We conclude that Big Data processing strategies are worth developing for 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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".