Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27936886›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2017

Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures.

Ruben T H M Larue, Gilles Defraene, Dirk De Ruysscher, Philippe Lambin, Wouter van Elmpt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 179 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
179citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

179 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Repeatability and Reproducibility of Radiomic Features: A Systematic Review.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Stable or not? unraveling the reliability of radiomic features in 4d-computed tomography in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Drug-Induced Interstitial Lung Disease in Lung Cancer Patients.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Radiomics in differential diagnosis of pancreatic tumors.European journal of radiology open · 2025
    Article
  20. Extracting full information from OCT scans-signs of early age-related macular degeneration within inner retinal layers by local neighbourhood statistics. Part I: Methodology.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Article

119 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ruben T H M Larue1 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Gilles Defraene2 Department of Oncology, Experimental Radiation Oncology, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Dirk De Ruysscher1 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Philippe Lambin1 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Wouter van Elmpt1 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of tumour characteristics based on medical imaging is an emerging field of research. In recent years, quantitative imaging features derived from CT, positron emission tomography and MR scans were shown to be of added value in the prediction of outcome parameters in oncology, in what is called the radiomics field. However, results might be difficult to compare owing to a lack of standardized methodologies to conduct quantitative image analyses. In this review, we aim to present an overview of the current challenges, technical routines and protocols that are involved in quantitative imaging studies. The first issue that should be overcome is the dependency of several features on the scan acquisition and image reconstruction parameters. Adopting consistent methods in the subsequent target segmentation step is evenly crucial. To further establish robust quantitative image analyses, standardization or at least calibration of imaging features based on different feature extraction settings is required, especially for texture- and filter-based features. Several open-source and commercial software packages to perform feature extraction are currently available, all with slightly different functionalities, which makes benchmarking quite challenging. The number of imaging features calculated is typically larger than the number of patients studied, which emphasizes the importance of proper feature selection and prediction model-building routines to prevent overfitting. Even though many of these challenges still need to be addressed before quantitative imaging can be brought into daily clinical practice, radiomics is expected to be a critical component for the integration of image-derived information to personalize treatment in the future.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27936886
PMCPMC5685111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.