A performance comparison of Dask and Apache Spark for data-intensive\n neuroimaging pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years, neuroimaging has entered the Big Data era due to the joint increase in image resolution, data sharing, and study sizes. However, no particular Big Data engines have emerged in this field, and several alternatives remain available. We compare two popular Big Data engines with Python APIs, Apache Spark and Dask, for their runtime performance in processing neuroimaging pipelines. Our evaluation uses two synthetic pipelines processing the 81GB BigBrain image, and a real pipeline processing anatomical data from more than 1,000 subjects. We benchmark these pipelines using various combinations of task durations, data sizes, and numbers of workers, deployed on an 8-node (8 cores ea.) compute cluster in Compute Canada's Arbutus cloud. We evaluate PySpark's RDD API against Dask's Bag, Delayed and Futures. Results show that despite slight differences between Spark and Dask, both engines perform comparably. However, Dask pipelines risk being limited by Python's GIL depending on task type and cluster configuration. In all cases, the major limiting factor was data transfer. While either engine is suitable for neuroimaging pipelines, more effort needs to be placed in reducing data transfer time.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".