Measuring and reducing the carbon footprint of <scp>fMRI</scp> preprocessing in <scp>fMRIPrep</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computationally expensive data processing in neuroimaging research places demands on energy consumption-and the resulting carbon emissions contribute to the climate crisis. We measured the carbon footprint of the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) preprocessing tool fMRIPrep, testing the effect of varying parameters on estimated carbon emissions and preprocessing performance. Performance was quantified using (a) statistical individual-level task activation in regions of interest and (b) mean smoothness of preprocessed data. Eight variants of fMRIPrep were run with 257 participants who had completed an fMRI stop signal task (the same data also used in the original validation of fMRIPrep). Some variants led to substantial reductions in carbon emissions without sacrificing data quality: for instance, disabling FreeSurfer surface reconstruction reduced carbon emissions by 48%. We provide six recommendations for minimising emissions without compromising performance. By varying parameters and computational resources, neuroimagers can substantially reduce the carbon footprint of their preprocessing. This is one aspect of our research carbon footprint over which neuroimagers have control and agency to act upon.
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 | 0.002 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".