Search for: All records

Neuroscience is advancing standardization and tool development to support rigor and transparency. Consequently, data pipeline complexity has increased, hindering FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) access. brainlife.io was developed to democratize neuroimaging research. The platform provides data standardization, management, visualization and processing and automatically tracks the provenance history of thousands of data objects. Here, brainlife.io is described and evaluated for validity, reliability, reproducibility, replicability and scientific utility using four data modalities and 3,200 participants.

 

I applaud the authors on their innovative generalized independent component analysis (ICA) framework for neuroimaging data. Although ICA has enjoyed great popularity for the analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, its applicability to other modalities has been limited because standard ICA algorithms may not be directly applicable to a diversity of data representations. This is particularly true for single‐subject structural neuroimaging, where only a single measurement is collected at each location in the brain. The ingenious idea of Wuet al.(2021) is to transform the data to a vector of probabilities via a mixture distribution withKcomponents, which (following a simple transformation to ) can be directly analyzed with standard ICA algorithms, such as infomax (Bell and Sejnowski, 1995) or fastICA (Hyvarinen, 1999). The underlying distribution forming the basis of the mixture is customized to the particular modality being analyzed. This framework, termeddistributional ICA(DICA), is applicable in theory to nearly any neuroimaging modality. This has substantial implications for ICA as a general tool for neuroimaging analysis, with particular promise for structural modalities and multimodal studies. This invited commentary focuses on the applicability and potential of DICA for different neuroimaging modalities, questions around details of implementation and performance, and limitations of the validation study presented in the paper.

 

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures ( n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.