↓ Skip to main content

Using Make for Reproducible and Parallel Neuroimaging Workflow and Quality-Assurance

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Make for Reproducible and Parallel Neuroimaging Workflow and Quality-Assurance
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fninf.2016.00002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary K. Askren, Trevor K. McAllister-Day, Natalie Koh, Zoé Mestre, Jennifer N. Dines, Benjamin A. Korman, Susan J. Melhorn, Daniel J. Peterson, Matthew Peverill, Xiaoyan Qin, Swati D. Rane, Melissa A. Reilly, Maya A. Reiter, Kelly A. Sambrook, Karl A. Woelfer, Thomas J. Grabowski, Tara M. Madhyastha

Abstract

The contribution of this paper is to describe how we can program neuroimaging workflow using Make, a software development tool designed for describing how to build executables from source files. A makefile (or a file of instructions for Make) consists of a set of rules that create or update target files if they have not been modified since their dependencies were last modified. These rules are processed to create a directed acyclic dependency graph that allows multiple entry points from which to execute the workflow. We show that using Make we can achieve many of the features of more sophisticated neuroimaging pipeline systems, including reproducibility, parallelization, fault tolerance, and quality assurance reports. We suggest that Make permits a large step toward these features with only a modest increase in programming demands over shell scripts. This approach reduces the technical skill and time required to write, debug, and maintain neuroimaging workflows in a dynamic environment, where pipelines are often modified to accommodate new best practices or to study the effect of alternative preprocessing steps, and where the underlying packages change frequently. This paper has a comprehensive accompanying manual with lab practicals and examples (see Supplemental Materials) and all data, scripts, and makefiles necessary to run the practicals and examples are available in the "makepipelines" project at NITRC.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Researcher 10 21%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 21%
Psychology 7 15%
Computer Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Engineering 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,000,263
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#315
of 843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,347
of 407,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.