An overview of the quality assurance and quality control of magnetic resonance imaging data for the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI): pipeline development and neuroinformatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Large scale research studies combining magnetic resonance imaging data generated at multiple sites on multiple vendor platforms are becoming more commonplace. The Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI - http://ondri.ca/ ), a project funded by the Ontario Brain Institute (OBI), is a recently established province-wide natural history study, which has recruited more than 500 participants from neurodegenerative disease groups including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, fronto-temporal dementia, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment, and cerebrovascular disease (previously referred to as the vascular cognitive impairment cohort). Because of its multi-site nature, all captured data must be standardized and meet minimum quality standards to reduce variability. The goal of the ONDRI imaging platform is to maximize data quality by implementing vendor-specific harmonized MR imaging protocols (consistent with the Canadi-an Dementia Imaging Protocol - http://www.cdip-pcid.ca/ ), monitoring protocol adherence, qualitatively assessing image quality, measuring signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise, monitoring system stability, and applying corrections based on the analysis of images from two different phantoms regularly acquired at each site. To maximize image quality, this work describes the use of various automatic pipelines and manual assessment steps, integrated within an established informatics and databasing platform, the Stroke Patient Recovery Research Database (SPReD) built on the Extensible Neuroimaging Archive Toolkit (XNAT), and contained within the Brain-CODE (Centre for Ontario Data Exploration) framework. The purpose of the current paper is to describe the steps undertaken by ONDRI to achieve this high standard of data integrity. Data have been successfully collected for the past 4 years with the pipelines and assessments identifying deviations, allowing for timely interventions and assessment of image quality.
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 | 0.238 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".