RESUMEN
The state of open science needs to be monitored to track changes over time and identify areas to create interventions to drive improvements. In order to monitor open science practices, they first need to be well defined and operationalized. To reach consensus on what open science practices to monitor at biomedical research institutions, we conducted a modified 3-round Delphi study. Participants were research administrators, researchers, specialists in dedicated open science roles, and librarians. In rounds 1 and 2, participants completed an online survey evaluating a set of potential open science practices, and for round 3, we hosted two half-day virtual meetings to discuss and vote on items that had not reached consensus. Ultimately, participants reached consensus on 19 open science practices. This core set of open science practices will form the foundation for institutional dashboards and may also be of value for the development of policy, education, and interventions.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Humanos , Consenso , Técnica Delphi , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
Max-trees, or component trees, are graph structures that represent the connected components of an image in a hierarchical way. Nowadays, many application fields rely on images with high-dynamic range or floating point values. Efficient sequential algorithms exist to build trees and compute attributes for images of any bit depth. However, we show that the current parallel algorithms perform poorly already with integers at bit depths higher than 16 bits per pixel. We propose a parallel method combining the two worlds of flooding and merging max-tree algorithms. First, a pilot max-tree of a quantized version of the image is built in parallel using a flooding method. Later, this structure is used in a parallel leaf-to-root approach to compute efficiently the final max-tree and to drive the merging of the sub-trees computed by the threads. We present an analysis of the performance both on simulated and actual 2D images and 3D volumes. Execution times are about better than the fastest sequential algorithm and speed-up goes up to on 64 threads.
