Review Article | Published:

Making big data open: data sharing in neuroimaging

Nature Neuroscience volume 17, pages 15101517 (2014) | Download Citation

Abstract

In the last decade, major advances have been made in the availability of shared neuroimaging data, such that there are more than 8,000 shared MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) data sets available online. Here we outline the state of data sharing for task-based functional MRI (fMRI) data, with a focus on various forms of data and their relative utility for subsequent analyses. We also discuss challenges to the future success of data sharing and highlight the ethical argument that data sharing may be necessary to maximize the contribution of human subjects.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. The WU-Minn human connectome project: an overview. Neuroimage 80, 62–79 (2013).

  2. 2.

    et al. Data sharing in neuroimaging research. Front. Neuroinform. 6, 9 (2012).

  3. 3.

    et al. Towards structured sharing of raw and derived neuroimaging data across existing resources. Neuroimage 82, 647–661 (2013).

  4. 4.

    , , & Making data sharing work: The FCP/INDI experience. Neuroimage 82, 683–691 (2013).

  5. 5.

    & The ethics of secondary data analysis: considering the application of Belmont Principles to the sharing of neuroimaging data. Neuroimage 82, 671–676 (2013).

  6. 6.

    , , & Localization of cognitive operations in the human brain. Science 240, 1627–1631 (1988).

  7. 7.

    Mapping mental function to brain structure: how can cognitive neuroimaging succeed? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 753–761 (2010).

  8. 8.

    Functional MRI and the study of human consciousness. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 14, 818–831 (2002).

  9. 9.

    , & Decoding the large-scale structure of brain function by classifying mental states across individuals. Psychol. Sci. 20, 1364–1372 (2009).

  10. 10.

    , & Mapping paradigm ontologies to and from the brain. Adv. Neural. Inf. Process. Syst. 26, 1673–1681 (2013).

  11. 11.

    et al. Discovering relations between mind, brain, and mental disorders using topic mapping. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002707 (2012).

  12. 12.

    Anonymous. Announcement: reducing our irreproducibility. Nature 496, 398 (2013).

  13. 13.

    Anonymous. How science goes wrong. The Economist (19 October 2013).

  14. 14.

    et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013).

  15. 15.

    Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).

  16. 16.

    et al. Potential reporting bias in FMRI studies of the brain. PLoS ONE 8, e70104 (2013).

  17. 17.

    , , & Whole-genome analyses of whole-brain data: working within an expanded search space. Nat. Neurosci. 17, 791–800 (2014).

  18. 18.

    On the plurality of (methodological) worlds: estimating the analytic flexibility of fMRI experiments. Front. Neurosci. 6, 149 (2012).

  19. 19.

    Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19, 640–648 (2008).

  20. 20.

    , , , & Everything you never wanted to know about circular analysis, but were afraid to ask. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 30, 1551–1557 (2010).

  21. 21.

    , , & Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping. Nat. Neurosci. 12, 535–540 (2009).

  22. 22.

    , , & Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4, 274–290 (2009).

  23. 23.

    , & False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1359–1366 (2011).

  24. 24.

    , & Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE 6, e26828 (2011).

  25. 25.

    et al. Toward discovery science of human brain function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 4734–4739 (2010).

  26. 26.

    & Functional connectivity density mapping. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9885–9890 (2010).

  27. 27.

    & Weight-conserving characterization of complex functional brain networks. Neuroimage 56, 2068–2079 (2011).

  28. 28.

    , , , & Standardizing the intrinsic brain: towards robust measurement of inter-individual variation in 1,000 functional connectomes. Neuroimage 80, 246–262 (2013).

  29. 29.

    et al. Network centrality in the human functional connectome. Cereb. Cortex 22, 1862–1875 (2012).

  30. 30.

    , , & Estimates of segregation and overlap of functional connectivity networks in the human cerebral cortex. Neuroimage 88C, 212–227 (2013).

  31. 31.

    , , , & Time-resolved resting-state brain networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10341–10346 (2014).

  32. 32.

    , , & BOLD Granger causality reflects vascular anatomy. PLoS ONE 8, e84279 (2013).

  33. 33.

    , , , & Meta-analysis of neuroimaging data: a comparison of image-based and coordinate-based pooling of studies. Neuroimage 45, 810–823 (2009).

  34. 34.

    , & BrainMap: the social evolution of a human brain mapping database. Neuroinformatics 3, 65–78 (2005).

  35. 35.

    , , , & Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data. Nat. Methods 8, 665–670 (2011).

  36. 36.

    et al. The Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Data Center (fMRIDC): the challenges and rewards of large-scale databasing of neuroimaging studies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 356, 1323–1339 (2001).

  37. 37.

    et al. Toward open sharing of task-based fMRI data: the OpenfMRI project. Front. Neuroinform. 7, 12 (2013).

  38. 38.

    & Why share data? lessons learned from the fMRIDC. Neuroimage 82, 677–682 (2013).

  39. 39.

    et al. MP2RAGE, a self bias-field corrected sequence for improved segmentation and T1-mapping at high field. Neuroimage 49, 1271–1281 (2010).

  40. 40.

    Calibrated fMRI. Neuroimage 62, 930–937 (2012).

  41. 41.

    , , , & Absolute quantification of resting oxygen metabolism and metabolic reactivity during functional activation using QUO2 MRI. Neuroimage 63, 1353–1363 (2012).

  42. 42.

    et al. The ADNI publication policy: commensurate recognition of critical contributors who are not authors. Neuroimage 59, 4196–4200 (2012).

  43. 43.

    & Why shared data should not be acknowledged on the author byline. Neuroimage 59, 4189–4195 (2012).

  44. 44.

    , & Making data sharing count: a publication-based solution. Front. Neurosci. 7, 9 (2013).

  45. 45.

    et al. A test-retest fMRI dataset for motor, language and spatial attention functions. Gigascience 2, 6 (2013).

  46. 46.

    et al. A high-resolution 7-tesla fMRI dataset from complex natural stimulation with an audio movie. Sci. Data 1, 140003 (2014).

  47. 47.

    Using someone else's data. practiCal fMRI: the nuts & bolts (2014).

  48. 48.

    Theory testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philos. Sci. 34, 103–115 (1967).

  49. 49.

    A case for registering studies of political outcomes: an application in the 2010 house elections. Polit. Anal. 21, 21–37 (2013).

  50. 50.

    HD-200 Consortium. The ADHD-200 consortium: a model to advance the translational potential of neuroimaging in clinical neuroscience. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 6, 62 (2012).

  51. 51.

    , , & Result analysis of the NIPS 2003 feature selection challenge. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 17, 545–552 (2004).

  52. 52.

    Bermuda rules: community spirit, with teeth. Science 291, 1192 (2001).

  53. 53.

    et al. The neuroscience information framework: a data and knowledge environment for neuroscience. Neuroinformatics 6, 149–160 (2008).

  54. 54.

    , , , & The NIF LinkOut broker: a web resource to facilitate federated data integration using NCBI identifiers. Neuroinformatics 6, 219–227 (2008).

  55. 55.

    & BioTorrents: a file sharing service for scientific data. PLoS ONE 5, e10071 (2010).

  56. 56.

    et al. XCEDE: an extensible schema for biomedical data. Neuroinformatics 10, 19–32 (2012).

  57. 57.

    & The cognitive paradigm ontology: design and application. Neuroinformatics 10, 57–66 (2012).

  58. 58.

    et al. The cognitive atlas: toward a knowledge foundation for cognitive neuroscience. Front. Neuroinform. 5, 17 (2011).

  59. 59.

    , , & The extensible neuroimaging archive toolkit: an informatics platform for managing, exploring, and sharing neuroimaging data. Neuroinformatics 5, 11–34 (2007).

  60. 60.

    & Is it time to re-prioritize neuroimaging databases and digital repositories? Neuroimage 47, 1720–1734 (2009).

  61. 61.

    , , , & LORIS: a web-based data management system for multi-center studies. Front. Neuroinform. 5, 37 (2011).

  62. 62.

    et al. COINS: an innovative informatics and neuroimaging tool suite built for large heterogeneous datasets. Front. Neuroinform. 5, 33 (2011).

  63. 63.

    et al. Human connectome project informatics: quality control, database services, and data visualization. Neuroimage 80, 202–219 (2013).

  64. 64.

    , & The LONI pipeline processing environment. Neuroimage 19, 1033–1048 (2003).

  65. 65.

    et al. Neuroimaging study designs, computational analyses and data provenance using the LONI pipeline. PLoS ONE 5, e13070 (2010).

  66. 66.

    et al. Nipype: a flexible, lightweight and extensible neuroimaging data processing framework in Python. Front. Neuroinform. 5, 13 (2011).

  67. 67.

    , , , & Provenance in neuroimaging. Neuroimage 42, 178–195 (2008).

  68. 68.

    et al. The pipeline system for octave and MATLAB (PSOM): a lightweight scripting framework and execution engine for scientific workflows. Front. Neuroinform. 6, 7 (2012).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to T. Schonberg, D.S. Margulies and K. Heuer for comments on an early draft. Preparation of this paper was supported by the US National Science Foundation (OCI-1131441) and US National Institute of Drug Abuse (1R21DA034316-S1) to R.A.P. and Max Planck Society to K.J.G.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Stanford Univeristy, Stanford, California, USA.

    • Russell A Poldrack
    •  & Krzysztof J Gorgolewski
  2. Max Planck Research Group Neuroanatomy and Connectivity, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany.

    • Krzysztof J Gorgolewski

Authors

  1. Search for Russell A Poldrack in:

  2. Search for Krzysztof J Gorgolewski in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell A Poldrack.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3818

Further reading