Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30319179›Full record

ArticleExpert systems with applications2017

Effects of MRI scanner parameters on breast cancer radiomics.

Ashirbani Saha, Xiaozhi Yu, Dushyant Sahoo, Maciej A Mazurowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Expert systems with applications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Development of an Automated CAD System for Lesion Detection in DCE-MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Generating Counterfactual Explanations For Causal Inference in Breast Cancer Treatment Response.IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) : [proceedings]. IEEE Conference on Automation Science and Engineering · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Ashirbani SahaDepartment of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Xiaozhi YuDepartment of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Dushyant SahooDepartment of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Maciej A MazurowskiDepartment of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Machine learning and collaborative filtering tools for personalized education in digital breast tomosynthesisR01EB021360 · NIBIB · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MAZUROWSKI, MACIEJ A. · 2016 to 2019
$1.6M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB021360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the impact of varying magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner parameters on the extraction of algorithmic features in breast MRI radiomics studies.

methodsIn this retrospective study, breast imaging data for 272 patients were analyzed with magnetic resonance (MR) images. From the MR images, we assembled and implemented 529 algorithmic features of breast tumors and fibrograndular tissue (FGT). We divided the features into 10 groups based on the type of data used for the feature extraction and the nature of the extracted information. Three scanner parameters were considered: scanner manufacturer, scanner magnetic field strength, and slice thickness. We assessed the impact of each of the scanner parameters on each of the feature by testing whether the feature values are systematically diverse for different values of these scanner parameters. A two-sample t-test has been used to establish whether the impact of a scanner parameter on values of a feature is significant and receiver operating characteristics have been used for to establish the extent of that effect.

resultsOn average, higher proportion (69% FGT versus 20% tumor) of FGT related features were affected by the three scanner parameters. Of all feature groups and scanner parameters, the feature group related to the variation in FGT enhancement was found to be the most sensitive to the scanner manufacturer (AUC = 0.81 ± 0.14).

conclusionsFeatures involving calculations from FGT are particularly sensitive to the scanner parameters.

Indexed as

breast cancer MRI radiomicscomputer-extracted features MRImagnetic field strengthROC analysisscanner manufacturerslice thickness

Identifiers

PMID30319179
PMCPMC6176866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.