| Title |
Neuroinformatics Database (NiDB) – A Modular, Portable Database for the Storage, Analysis, and Sharing of Neuroimaging Data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroinformatics, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12021-013-9194-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory A. Book, Beth M. Anderson, Michael C. Stevens, David C. Glahn, Michal Assaf, Godfrey D. Pearlson |
| Abstract |
We present a modular, high performance, open-source database system that incorporates popular neuroimaging database features with novel peer-to-peer sharing, and a simple installation. An increasing number of imaging centers have created a massive amount of neuroimaging data since fMRI became popular more than 20 years ago, with much of that data unshared. The Neuroinformatics Database (NiDB) provides a stable platform to store and manipulate neuroimaging data and addresses several of the impediments to data sharing presented by the INCF Task Force on Neuroimaging Datasharing, including 1) motivation to share data, 2) technical issues, and 3) standards development. NiDB solves these problems by 1) minimizing PHI use, providing a cost effective simple locally stored platform, 2) storing and associating all data (including genome) with a subject and creating a peer-to-peer sharing model, and 3) defining a sample, normalized definition of a data storage structure that is used in NiDB. NiDB not only simplifies the local storage and analysis of neuroimaging data, but also enables simple sharing of raw data and analysis methods, which may encourage further sharing. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 4% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 22% |
| Researcher | 8 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 9 | 20% |
| Engineering | 8 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,895,455
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Neuroinformatics
#36
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,177
of 199,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroinformatics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 199,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.