Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3093338.3093361acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespearcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Performance of Image Matching in the Computational Anatomy Gateway: CPU and GPU Implementations in OpenCL

Published: 09 July 2017 Publication History

Abstract

The Computational Anatomy Gateway is a software as a service tool that provides tools for analysis of structural MRI to the neuroimaging community by calculating diffeomorphic mappings between a user's data and well characterized atlas images. These tools include automatic parcellation of brain images into labeled regions, described by dense 3D arrays; and shape analysis of regions described by triangulated surfaces, for hypothesis testing in specific populations. We have developed mapping techniques that combine the benefits of working with triangulated surfaces with those of working with dense images, and have been working toward uniting these two tools: to automatically perform shape analysis on each segmented subcortical structure simultaneously.
In this work we investigate the performance of our algorithm across a wide range of input data, examining the effect of number of voxels in 3D images, number of vertices in triangulated surfaces, and number of structures being mapped onto simultaneously. Further, we investigate the performance of our OpenCL code implemented in two different environments: the Intel OpenCL environment on a CPU, and the CUDA OpenCL environment on a GPU.
We identify a range of inputs, generally smaller datasets, for which the CPU out performs the GPU. Finally we show the feasibility of mapping onto all the human gray matter subcortical structures simultaneously, and discuss our strategy for extending to higher resolution images and more labeled structures in mouse brain imaging at the micrometer scale.

References

[1]
Marilyn S Albert, Steven T DeKosky, Dennis Dickson, Bruno Dubois, Howard H Feldman, Nick C Fox, Anthony Gamst, David M Holtzman, William J Jagust, Ronald C Petersen, and others. 2011. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimers disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimers Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & dementia 7, 3 (2011), 270--279.
[2]
John Ashburner and Karl J Friston. 2000. Voxel-based morphometrythe methods. Neuroimage 11, 6 (2000), 805--821.
[3]
VG Boltyanskiy, RV Gamkrelidze, Yef Mishchenko, and LS Pontryagin. 1962. Mathematical theory of optimal processes. (1962).
[4]
Siu-Wing Cheng, Tamal K Dey, and Jonathan Shewchuk. 2012. Delaunay mesh generation. CRC Press.
[5]
Hong Wei Dong. 2008. The Allen reference atlas: A digital color brain atlas of the C57Bl/6J male mouse. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
[6]
Paul Dupuis, Ulf Grenander, and Michael I Miller. 1998. Variational problems on flows of diffeomorphisms for image matching. Quarterly of applied mathematics (1998), 587--600.
[7]
Stanley Durrleman, Stéphanie Allassonnière, and Sarang Joshi. 2013. Sparse adaptive parameterization of variability in image ensembles. International Journal of Computer Vision 101, 1 (2013), 161--183.
[8]
Ulf Grenander and Michael I Miller. 1998. Computational anatomy: An emerging discipline. Quarterly of applied mathematics 56, 4 (1998), 617--694.
[9]
Saurabh Jain, Daniel J Tward, David S Lee, Anthony Kolasny, Timothy Brown, J Tilak Ratnanather, Michael I Miller, and Laurent Younes. 2014. Computational anatomy gateway: leveraging xsede computational resources for shape analysis. In Proceedings of the 2014 Annual Conference on Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment. ACM, 54.
[10]
William E Lorensen and Harvey E Cline. 1987. Marching cubes: A high resolution 3D surface construction algorithm. In ACM siggraph computer graphics, Vol. 21. ACM, 163--169.
[11]
Pamela B Mahon, David S Lee, Huong Trinh, Daniel Tward, Michael I Miller, Laurent Younes, Patrick E Barta, and J Tilak Ratnanather. 2015. Morphometry of the amygdala in schizophrenia and psychotic bipolar disorder. Schizophrenia research 164, 1 (2015), 199--202.
[12]
Michael I Miller, J Tilak Ratnanather, Daniel J Tward, Timothy Brown, David S Lee, Michael Ketcha, Kanami Mori, Mei-Cheng Wang, Susumu Mori, Marilyn S Albert, and others. 2015. Network neurodegeneration in Alzheimers disease via MRI based shape diffeomorphometry and high-field atlasing. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology 3 (2015), 54.
[13]
Michael I Miller, Alain Trouvé, and Laurent Younes. 2006. Geodesic shooting for computational anatomy. Journal of mathematical imaging and vision 24, 2 (2006), 209--228.
[14]
Michael I Miller, Alain Trouvé, and Laurent Younes. 2015. Hamiltonian Systems and Optimal Control in Computational Anatomy: 100 Years Since D'Arcy Thompson. Annual review of biomedical engineering 17 (2015), 447--509.
[15]
Anqi Qiu, Deana Crocetti, Marcy Adler, E Mark Mahone, Martha B Denckla, Michael I Miller, and Stewart H Mostofsky. 2009. Basal ganglia volume and shape in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 166, 1 (2009), 74--82.
[16]
Xiaoying Tang, Kenichi Oishi, Andreia V Faria, Argye E Hillis, Marilyn S Albert, Susumu Mori, and Michael I Miller. 2013. Bayesian parameter estimation and segmentation in the multiatlas random orbit model. PloS one 8, 6 (2013), e65591.
[17]
John Towns, Timothy Cockerill, Maytal Dahan, Ian Foster, Kelly Gaither, Andrew Grimshaw, Victor Hazlewood, Scott Lathrop, Dave Lifka, Gregory D Peterson, and others. 2014. XSEDE: accelerating scientific discovery. Computing in Science & Engineering 16, 5 (2014), 62--74.
[18]
Daniel Tward, Michael Miller, Alain Trouve, and Laurent Younes. 2016. Parametric surface diffeomorphometry for low dimensional embeddings of dense segmentations and imagery. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence (2016).
[19]
Daniel J Tward, Anthony Kolasny, Chelsea S Sicat, Timothy Brown, and Michael I Miller. 2016. Tools for studying populations and timeseries of neuroanatomy enabled through GPU acceleration in the Computational Anatomy Gateway. In Proceedings of the XSEDE16 Conference on Diversity, Big Data, and Science at Scale. ACM, 15.
[20]
Marc Vaillant and Joan Glaunès. 2005. Surface matching via currents. In Biennial International Conference on Information Processing in Medical Imaging. Springer, 381--392.
[21]
Miaomiao Zhang, William M Wells III, and Polina Golland. 2016. Low-Dimensional Statistics of Anatomical Variability via Compact Representation of Image Deformations. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 166--173.

Cited By

View all
  • (2019)Expanding the Computational Anatomy Gateway from clinical imaging to basic neuroscience researchPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2019: Rise of the Machines (learning)10.1145/3332186.3332217(1-6)Online publication date: 28-Jul-2019

Index Terms

  1. Performance of Image Matching in the Computational Anatomy Gateway: CPU and GPU Implementations in OpenCL

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    PEARC '17: Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2017: Sustainability, Success and Impact
    July 2017
    451 pages
    ISBN:9781450352727
    DOI:10.1145/3093338
    • General Chair:
    • David Hart
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 09 July 2017

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Computational anatomy
    2. GPU
    3. OpenCL
    4. diffeomorphometry
    5. neuroimaging
    6. science gateway

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Funding Sources

    Conference

    PEARC17

    Acceptance Rates

    PEARC '17 Paper Acceptance Rate 54 of 79 submissions, 68%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 133 of 202 submissions, 66%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)30
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)10
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2019)Expanding the Computational Anatomy Gateway from clinical imaging to basic neuroscience researchPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2019: Rise of the Machines (learning)10.1145/3332186.3332217(1-6)Online publication date: 28-Jul-2019

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media