Report from the niQC meeting on Aug 8, 2018

[Pradeep Reddy Raamana]

Hi Everyone,

Please find a short report I've compiled from our meeting in Montreal.

The minutes/reports will be collected in this document - please add your comments if I missed any important points or participants (Apologies!):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yLRa8_FstgZ_QKor_ms7bTYqOiiFO7yuHceo3bcMPzY/edit?usp=sharing

So glad to share we are 50 member strong now! ;)

Report from the niQC meeting on Aug 8, 2018

At the Hackathon prior to INCF NI 2018 conference

Summary

-       Each participant described the challenges they faced (from various perspectives), as well the results from their own analyses

o   Topics touched on were neonatal data, crowdsourcing, lack of consistency, lack of public “rated”/labelled datasets (“ground truth” to develop algorithms)

-       Everyone agreed on the need for standards, easier to use tools and more educational materials

-       A consensus was reached on running a survey to learn “who is doing what”

-       Action items:

⁃       Pradeep to draft the survey to gather in-house protocols, their justification, any existing tools/libraries

o   Share it with the group to finalize the questions, breadth/depth of the survey, as answers depend on the way questions are asked

o   Get it circulated widely

o   Setup website and repos etc

o   Another possible survey: for the purpose of algorithm development as well as education materials, crowdsourcing examples of bad scans (or those with various interesting/extreme artefacts) would be great

Future Meetings

-       No concrete dates yet – they will be announced via the google group.

-       Suggestions [from Ben Inglis] for an open Google Hangouts/Skype at some regular interval (every 6-8 weeks?), esp. in the first year.

Participants:

Stephen Strother, David Kennedy, Pierre Bellec, Sebastian Urchs, Elizabeth Dupre, Taylor Salo, Katie Battenhorn, Erin Dickie, Yang Ding, Steve Hodges, Julie Bates, Dawn Smith, Greg Kiar, Basile Pinsard, Pradeep Reddy Raamana

[Pradeep Reddy Raamana]

Here is a lovely photo that includes some of the participants!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NIQC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/21b14630-76b4-4607-9d43-82302c290ba2%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Postdoctoral fellow

Neuroinformatics,

Rotman Research Institute, 

Baycrest Health Sciences.

3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON
Canada, M6A 2E1.
Phone: +1 416-785-2500 x6408. 

[JB Poline]

Great photo and great report ! Quick question - should the survey be on all imaging modalities (t1,dti,fmri) ? or focusing on say t1 to start with ?

cheers

JB

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvojaR5zGu3JZwwGm5k-2uUwEsCHqDReE7S3cw1vYj-kPg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Pradeep Reddy Raamana]

I suggest we start with a free-form survey, broken down into the following sections: task/goal/need, process/protocol, justification/evidence, tools and "anything else". If the respondent doesn't already engage in any, they can hash out a wishlist.

Lot of the answers will likely be modality- or task-specific (as QC often is), but we can then categorize them appropriately (identifying common checks and processes etc). The key reason I would like it to be free-form is to not force a separation when there is none (which can happen later when there is consensus) as well as capture the inter-task (or cross-modality) scenarios which were not yet familiar with. 

Once we have the answers, 

• we can separate/cluster them all based on various factors, and 
• identify gaps in consensus
• identify variabilities in protocols for the same task
• operationalize them into various practical protocols as a group. 
• which can then be circulated again to a wider audience for open debate and wider consultation 
• (, or directly sent for peer-review, whichever the group decides)
  

But I am open to other ideas too.

If the suggested sounds good, I can send a draft soon, which we can collaboratively edit prior to distribution.

Thanks,

Pradeep

[JB Poline]

yes - will be modality specific - but yes let's get that ball rolling !

cheers

JB

[Pradeep Reddy Raamana]

Sure - I will wait for few more days to hear from others.

[Pradeep Reddy Raamana]

Thank you all for your input, who responded to me already. Others, am I missing any key sections?

PS: Feel free to Reply All, this is a friendly group of academics - I met most of them and I can personally attest to it ;)

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/21b14630-76b4-4607-9d43-82302c290ba2%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Postdoctoral fellow

Neuroinformatics,

Rotman Research Institute, 

Baycrest Health Sciences.

3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON
Canada, M6A 2E1.
Phone: +1 416-785-2500 x6408. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NIQC" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+uns...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvojaR5zGu3JZwwGm5k-2uUwEsCHqDReE7S3cw1vYj-kPg%40mail.gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Postdoctoral fellow

Neuroinformatics,

Rotman Research Institute, 

Baycrest Health Sciences.

3560 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON
Canada, M6A 2E1.
Phone: +1 416-785-2500 x6408. 

[Remi Gau]

Hey,

Something I thought about the other day but forgot to ask.

Are talking about quality control of raw data or does it cover also things to look for during pre-processing? Just to be clear.

@+

Remi

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvrVOjaqGEcTEM6pjRVdHg6otZgjvAPQSWLB9AFhKe9PPA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Pradeep Reddy Raamana]

Good question - this initial survey will be broad: any type of QC (manual or automated, visual or quantified, or a mix) applied to data at any stage, including raw data, derived outputs (intermediate and final). This will be used to narrow down discussion topics and focus on any specifics.