| Literature DB >> 27747565 |
Milad Makkie1, Shijie Zhao1,2, Xi Jiang1, Jinglei Lv1,2, Yu Zhao1, Bao Ge1,3, Xiang Li1, Junwei Han2, Tianming Liu4.
Abstract
Tremendous efforts have thus been devoted on the establishment of functional MRI informatics systems that recruit a comprehensive collection of statistical/computational approaches for fMRI data analysis. However, the state-of-the-art fMRI informatics systems are especially designed for specific fMRI sessions or studies of which the data size is not really big, and thus has difficulty in handling fMRI 'big data.' Given the size of fMRI data are growing explosively recently due to the advancement of neuroimaging technologies, an effective and efficient fMRI informatics system which can process and analyze fMRI big data is much needed. To address this challenge, in this work, we introduce our newly developed informatics platform, namely, 'HAFNI-enabled largescale platform for neuroimaging informatics (HELPNI).' HELPNI implements our recently developed computational framework of sparse representation of whole-brain fMRI signals which is called holistic atlases of functional networks and interactions (HAFNI) for fMRI data analysis. HELPNI provides integrated solutions to archive and process large-scale fMRI data automatically and structurally, to extract and visualize meaningful results information from raw fMRI data, and to share open-access processed and raw data with other collaborators through web. We tested the proposed HELPNI platform using publicly available 1000 Functional Connectomes dataset including over 1200 subjects. We identified consistent and meaningful functional brain networks across individuals and populations based on resting state fMRI (rsfMRI) big data. Using efficient sampling module, the experimental results demonstrate that our HELPNI system has superior performance than other systems for large-scale fMRI data in terms of processing and storing the data and associated results much faster.Entities:
Keywords: Big data; HAFNI; HELPNI; Informatics system; XNAT; fMRI
Year: 2015 PMID: 27747565 PMCID: PMC4737667 DOI: 10.1007/s40708-015-0024-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Inform ISSN: 2198-4026
Fig. 1I The decomposed dictionary components from the fMRI data during one single task and II the 14 corresponding reference weight maps by applying the HAFNI method to the whole-brain fMRI signals. This figure visualizes 14 selected dictionary components which are either motor task-evoked networks (M1–M5) or resting state networks (RSN1–RSN9). The green bars in (I) show 400 dictionary network components (indexed along x-axis) and the spatial non-zero voxel numbers that each component’s reference weight map contains (represented by the horizontal height of each bar). The panels in (II) visualize the temporal time series (white curve) and spatial distribution map (eight representative volume images) of each network. The red curves represent the task contrast designs of the motor tfMRI data. (Color figure online)
Fig. 2HELPNI structure and connected components. a Web builder through which the web application will be built. b HELPNI platform big picture. c File infrastructure workflow consists of pre-archive and archive in which data will be temporary stored and then after user inspection and running required processes, data will be moved to their permanent destination where pipelines processes will be run on. d Client application and users transactions. Local and global users connect to the web interface after logging into the system and passing firewall, using their preferred client application. Then, they will be able to process, share, download, and upload data interactively. e Pipeline processing unit(s) that dynamically receive parameters and executives from pipeline manager and after running predefined steps, generate a user friendly report along with required notifications and then will store the results into file storage
Fig. 3An overview of HAFNI implementation through HELPNI and its workflow
Fig. 4The computational pipeline of sparse representation of whole-brain fMRI signals using an online dictionary learning approach. a The whole-brain fMRI signals are aggregated into a big data matrix, in which each row represents the whole-brain fMRI BOLD data in one time point and each column contains the time series of one single voxel. b The target optimization function of dictionary learning and sparse coding. c Illustration of the learned atomic dictionary, each dictionary represents one functional network component. d The coefficient matrix, each row in the matrix measures the weight coefficient of the corresponding dictionary over the whole brain. That is, each row defines the contribution of one dictionary to the composition of all voxel-wise fMRI signals
The 1000 Functional Connectomes Project datasets summary
| Baltimore ( | Bangor ( | Beijing_Zang ( | Berlin_Margulies ( |
| Cambridge_Buckner ( | Cleveland CCF ( | Dallas ( | Durham_Madden ( |
| ICBM ( | Leiden_2180 ( | Leiden_2200 ( | Leipzig ( |
| Milwaukee_a ( | Milwaukee_b ( | Munchen ( | Newark ( |
| NewHaven_a ( | NewHaven_b ( | NewYork_a_ADHD ( | NewYork_a ( |
| NewYork_b ( | NewYork_Test-Retest_Reliability ( | Ontario ( | Orangeburg ( |
| Oulu ( | Oxford ( | PaloAlto ( | Pittsburgh ( |
| Queensland ( | SaintLouis ( | Taipei_a ( | Taipei_b ( |
| Atlanta (ages: 22–57; TR = 2; # slices = 20; # timepoints = 205) | AnnArbor_a ( | AnnArbor_b ( |
Fig. 5The identified group-wise consistent 10 RSN networks from 5 randomly selected datasets (Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Cambridge, and Cleveland) in 1000 Functional Connectomes Project by HELPNI. Each row represents the networks from one dataset; the last row shows the RSN templates for comparison. Only the most informative slice, which has been overlaid on the MNI152 template, is shown here
Fig. 6The identified 10 RSN networks of individual subject from 5 datasets (Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Cambridge, and Cleveland) in 1000 Functional Connectomes Project by HELPNI. For each dataset, the 10 RSN networks from one randomly selected subject are shown here
Spatial overlap between identified group-wise RSNs and templates in different datasets
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore | 0.88 | 0.94 | 0.82 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.67 | 0.71 |
| Beijing | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.94 | 0.85 | 0.58 | 0.66 | 0.82 |
| Berlin | 0.81 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.60 | 0.73 | 0.82 |
| Cambridge | 0.86 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.76 | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.56 | 0.69 | 0.78 |
| Cleveland | 0.82 | 0.89 | 0.80 | 0.77 | 0.72 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.58 | 0.53 | 0.75 |
Spatial overlap between identified individual RSNs and templates in different datasets
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore | 0.34 ± 0.09 | 0.28 ± 0.09 | 0.29 ± 0.09 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.30 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.06 | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 0.21 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.06 |
| Beijing | 0.36 ± 0.09 | 0.29 ± 0.12 | 0.32 ± 0.12 | 0.37 ± 0.08 | 0.28 ± 0.09 | 0.41 ± 0.10 | 0.25 ± 0.07 | 0.27 ± 0.08 | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.26 ± 0.06 |
| Berlin | 0.32 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.09 | 0.24 ± 0.10 | 0.33 ± 0.06 | 0.23 ± 0.07 | 0.36 ± 0.09 | 0.25 ± 0.06 | 0.26 ± 0.05 | 0.27 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.05 |
| Cambridge | 0.35 ± 0.08 | 0.32 ± 0.10 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 0.35 ± 0.07 | 0.41 ± 0.10 | 0.40 ± 0.09 | 0.25 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.24 ± 0.05 |
| Cleveland | 0.32 ± 0.09 | 0.27 ± 0.13 | 0.25 ± 0.11 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 0.19 ± 0.08 | 0.36 ± 0.09 | 0.22 ± 0.06 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.22 ± 0.05 |
Fig. 7The identified group-wise consistent 10 RSN networks from 5 datasets (Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Cambridge, and Cleveland) in 1000 Functional Connectomes Project by HELPNI with sampling module. Each row shows the networks from one dataset and the last row shows the RSN templates for comparison
Fig. 8The identified 10 RSN networks of individual subject from 5 datasets (Baltimore, Beijing, Berlin, Cambridge, and Cleveland) in 1000 Functional Connectomes Project by HELPNI with sampling module. For each dataset, we randomly selected one subject’s result as example
Spatial overlap between identified group-wise RSNs with sampling module and templates in different datasets
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.76 | 0.92 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.68 | 0.72 |
| Beijing | 0.94 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.74 | 0.87 |
| Berlin | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.90 | 0.83 | 0.73 | 0.87 | 0.76 | 0.68 | 0.88 | 0.82 |
| Cambridge | 0.84 | 0.98 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 0.95 | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.57 | 0.68 | 0.83 |
| Cleveland | 0.80 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.74 |
Spatial overlap between identified individual RSNs with sampling module and templates in different datasets
| #1 | #2 | #3 | #4 | #5 | #6 | #7 | #8 | #9 | #10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baltimore | 0.38 ± 0.09 | 0.30 ± 0.10 | 0.29 ± 0.10 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.36 ± 0.08 | 0.21 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.07 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.25 ± 0.06 |
| Beijing | 0.39 ± 0.11 | 0.32 ± 0.13 | 0.34 ± 0.13 | 0.39 ± 0.09 | 0.31 ± 0.10 | 0.43 ± 0.11 | 0.29 ± 0.08 | 0.31 ± 0.10 | 0.27 ± 0.07 | 0.29 ± 0.08 |
| Berlin | 0.36 ± 0.06 | 0.31 ± 0.10 | 0.28 ± 0.12 | 0.36 ± 0.08 | 0.24 ± 0.07 | 0.39 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.32 ± 0.05 | 0.28 ± 0.07 | 0.28 ± 0.06 |
| Cambridge | 0.37 ± 0.08 | 0.34 ± 0.11 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 0.37 ± 0.07 | 0.44 ± 0.12 | 0.41 ± 0.09 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.32 ± 0.05 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.26 ± 0.06 |
| Cleveland | 0.34 ± 0.11 | 0.29 ± 0.13 | 0.25 ± 0.11 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.20 ± 0.08 | 0.38 ± 0.08 | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.32 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.07 | 0.24 ± 0.06 |