2007 Annual Scientific Report

• For the administrative section of the 2007 annual report see here:
• For detailed descriptions of all project referenced in this report, see here: Collaborations.

2. Four Main Themes

This year's activities focus on four main themes: Diffusion Image Analysis, Structural Analysis, Functional MRI Analysis, and the NA-MIC Kit. Each of the following sections begins with an overview of the theme, provides a progress update and list of key investigators, and concludes with a set of links to additional information for individual projects in that theme.

These thematic activities involve scientists from each of the 7 NA-MIC cores (Appendix).

• Core 1 Algorithms-Ross Whitaker PI
• Core 2 Engineering-Will Schroeder PI
• Core 3 DBP1-Martha Shenton PI / DBP2-Andy Saykin PI / DBP3-Steven Potkin PI
• Core 4 Service-Will Schroeder PI
• Core 5 Training-Randy Gollub PI
• Core 6 Dissemination-Tina Kapur Co-PI; Steve Pieper Co-PI
• Core 7 Leadership-Ron Kikinis

2.1 Diffusion Image Analysis Theme

Key Investigators

• BWH: Martha Shenton, Marek Kubicki, Marc Niethammer, Sylvain Bouix, Mark Dreusicke, Carl-Fredrik Westin, Raul San Jose, Gordon Kindlmann, Doug Markant
• Harvard/MGH: Dave Tuch, Denis Jen, Josh Snyder
• MIT: Lauren O'Donnell
• UCI: James Fallon, Martina Panzenboeck
• UNC: Guido Gerig, Isabelle Corouge, Casey Goodlett, Martin Styner
• Utah: Tom Fletcher, Ross Whitaker, Saurav Basu
• Georgia Tech: Eric Pichon, John Melonakos, Xavier LeFaucheur, Allen Tannenbaum
• Dartmouth: John West, Andrew Saykin, Laura Flashman, Paul Wang, Heather Pixley, Robert Roth
• Isomics: Steve Pieper

Additional Information

For details of each of the projects in this theme, please see NA-MIC Projects on Diffusion Image Analysis.

2.2 Structural Analysis Theme

Key Investigators

• MIT: Kilian Pohl, Sandy Wells, Eric Grimson
• UNC: Martin Styner, Ipek Oguz, Guido Gerig
• Utah: Ross Whitaker, Suyash Awate, Tolga Tasdizen, Tom Fletcher, Joshua Cates, Miriah Meyer
• GaTech: Allen Tannenbaum, John Melonakos, Tauseef ur Rehman, Shawn Lankton, Ramsey Al-Hakim, Eric Pichon, Delphine Nain, Oleg Michailovich, Yogesh Rathi, James Malcolm
• Steve Pieper, Bill Lorensen, Luis Ibanez, Karthik Krishnan, Michael J. Pan, Jagadeeswaran Rajendiran, Jim Miller, Karthik Krishnan, Luis Ibanez
• Harvard PNL: Sylvain Bouix, Motoaki Nakamura, Min-Seong Koo, Martha Shenton, Marc Niethammer, Jim Levitt
• Dartmouth: Andrew Saykin
• UCI: James Fallon

Additional Information

For details of each of the projects in this theme, please see NA-MIC Projects on Structural Image Analysis.

2.3 Functional MRI Analysis Theme

Key Investigators

• BWH: Martha Shenton, Marek Kubicki, Wendy Plesniak, Sandy Wells, Carsten Richter, Haiying Liu, Cindy Wible, Ron Kikinis
• Dartmouth: Andrew Saykin, Robert Roth, John West, Laura Flashman, Thomas McAllister, Nancy Koven, J.C. Pendergrass
• GE: Jim Miller
• Georgia Tech: Steven Haker, Allen Tannenbaum
• Harvard: Dave Tuch, Josh Snyder, Gordon Kindlmann, Raul San Jose
• Isomics: Steve Pieper, H Liu
• Kitware: Karthik Krishnan
• MIT: Polina Golland, Wanmei Ou
• Toronto: James Kennedy
• UCI: Steven Potkin, James Fallon, Jessica Turner, Lisa Kilpatrick, David Medina

Additional Information

For details of each of the projects in this theme, please see NA-MIC Projects on Functional MRI Analysis.

2.4 NA-MIC Kit Theme

Key Investigators

• GE: Bill Lorensen, Jim Miller, Xiaodong Tao, Dan Blezek
• Isomics: Steve Pieper, Alex Yarmarkovich
• Kitware: Will Schroeder, Luis Ibanez, Karthik Krishnan, Andy Cedilnik, Sebastien Barre, Mathieu Malaterre
• UCLA: Mike Pan, Jagadeeswaran Rajendiran
• UCSD: Brendan Faherty, Jeff Grethe
• Harvard: Nicole Aucoin, Katie Hayes, Wendy Plesniak, Mike Halle, Gordon Kindlmann, Raul San Jose Estepar, Haiying Liu, Ron Kikinis
• MIT: Lauren O'Donnell, Kilian Pohl

Additional Information

For details of each of the projects in this theme, please see NA-MIC Kit Projects.

5.NA-MIC Timeline

This section provides a table of NAMIC timelines from the original proposal that graphically depicts completed tasks/goals in years 1, 2, and 3 and tasks/goals to be completed in years 4-5. Changes to the original timelines have also been described.

2007 Scientific Report Timeline

6. EAB Report

The NA-MIC External Advisory Board (EAB), chaired by Prof. Chris Johnson of the University of Utah, met at the annual All-Hands Meeting. After individual presentations by NA-MIC investigators and open as well as closed-door EAB discussion, the Board provided its independent expert assessment of the Center (Appendix 2).

Logistics

Schedule for preparation of this report

• March 22nd - review list of projects and themes, create example project descrition, discuss overall strategy. Participants: TBD.
• March 30th - complete project description pages using example. (All Site PIs).
• April 5th - follow up tcon of core PIs to review project descriptions, and to discuss project theme summaries/timetables/highlights/impact sections.
• April 12 - Publications page to be updated with all NA-MIC cited Publications (All Site PIs)
• April 12 - first draft completed for review by Ron and all site PIs
• April 19 - feedback on draft (Ron)
• April 26 - Introduction and final review (Marty)
• May 1, midnight - final version submitted to NA-MIC editor (Ann)
• May 21 - final edited version given to Sanjay (Ann)

Guidelines from Grace Peng, NIH Program Officer, for this report

The key is to synthesize all the individual elements into bigger picture stories that really speak of each area’s impact to the community.

The specialized scientific report should have the following format:

1. Introductory page describing the new grouping of NAMIC project themes.
2. A description of progress in each NAMIC project theme (not to exceed 2 pages each), tying together relevant activities from participating subcomponents and referencing cores in parentheses.
3. A table of NAMIC timelines (from original proposal), graphically depicting completed tasks/goals in years 1,2, and 3 and tasks/goals to be completed in years 4-5. Changes to the original timelines should be described.
4. A description of 3 highlights selected from all NAMIC projects to showcase NAMIC.
5. A discussion of NAMIC’s impact and value to the biocomputing community this year.