| Literature DB >> 34239433 |
Tinashe M Tapera1,2, Matthew Cieslak1,2, Max Bertolero1,2, Azeez Adebimpe1,2, Geoffrey K Aguirre3, Ellyn R Butler1,2, Philip A Cook4, Diego Davila1,2, Mark A Elliott4, Sophia Linguiti1,2, Kristin Murtha1,2, William Tackett3, John A Detre3, Theodore D Satterthwaite1,2.
Abstract
The recent and growing focus on reproducibility in neuroimaging studies has led many major academic centers to use cloud-based imaging databases for storing, analyzing, and sharing complex imaging data. Flywheel is one such database platform that offers easily accessible, large-scale data management, along with a framework for reproducible analyses through containerized pipelines. The Brain Imaging Data Structure (BIDS) is the de facto standard for neuroimaging data, but curating neuroimaging data into BIDS can be a challenging and time-consuming task. In particular, standard solutions for BIDS curation are limited on Flywheel. To address these challenges, we developed "FlywheelTools," a software toolbox for reproducible data curation and manipulation on Flywheel. FlywheelTools includes two elements: fw-heudiconv, for heuristic-driven curation of data into BIDS, and flaudit, which audits and inventories projects on Flywheel. Together, these tools accelerate reproducible neuroscience research on the widely used Flywheel platform.Entities:
Keywords: BIDS; Flywheel; curation; neuroimaging; neuroinformatics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34239433 PMCID: PMC8258420 DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2021.678403
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neuroinform ISSN: 1662-5196 Impact factor: 4.081
FIGURE 1Brain Imaging Data Structure-app workflow. BIDS curation on file systems is a common task that can be accomplished by existing tools (heudiconv, dcm2bids, etc.) or manually, but mechanisms for BIDS curation on many cloud databases have yet to be developed. FlywheelTools provides this functionality for the Flywheel platform.
FIGURE 2FlywheelTools workflow. Users first use the tabulate tool to extract sequence information from their data, which they use to develop a heuristic that delineates how sequences are mapped into BIDS. After this, they use the curate tool to convert their data into BIDS, and the validate tool to assess their curation. The export tool can be used to export their BIDS data as necessary.
FIGURE 3Enumeration of available sequences in a flywheel project. Panel (A) plots the count of files in each collected sequence; in this example, there are 60 files collected for the B0map sequence, as there are 20 subjects and 3 B0map sequences. Panel (B) shows the accompanying interactive table.
FIGURE 4Interactive tree diagram illustrating BIDS curation. The tree shows how each sequence has been curated into BIDS format; users can hover their mouse over each leaf to show how many files have been curated into each BIDS filename template.
FIGURE 5Enumeration of gear runs in a Flywheel project. The number of gear runs is shown for various gears. For each gear, the percent of completed versus failed runs is shown. For example, 95 percent of the subjects (n = 19) were successfully run through fMRI-prep.
FIGURE 6Project completeness tables compared to the template participant in a Flywheel project. Panel (A) compares the sequences available for each participant to the template subject and identifies missing sequences. For example, this table illustrates that subjects cec4ba54 and f53cd86f did not have DWI sequences collected. Panel (B) similarly shows completeness of BIDS curation. As expected, the two participants who did not have DWI sequences [in panel (A)] did not have diffusion data curated into BIDS. Panel (C) shows gear run completion; here, flaudit reports that the same two participants that lacked DWI data did not have a successful run of QSIPrep. Finally, the report notes that participant f53cd86f did not yet complete fMRIPrep or XCPEngine successfully.