Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30369010›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2018

Quantitative variations in texture analysis features dependent on MRI scanning parameters: A phantom model.

Karen Buch, Hirofumi Kuno, Muhammad M Qureshi, Baojun Li, Osamu Sakai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Artificial intelligence-based MRI radiomics and radiogenomics in glioma.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Karen BuchDepartment of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Hirofumi KunoDepartment of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Muhammad M QureshiDepartments of Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Baojun LiDepartment of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Osamu SakaiDepartments of Radiology, Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, and Radiation Oncology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the influence of MRI scanning parameters on texture analysis features.

methodsPublicly available data from the Reference Image Database to Evaluate Therapy Response (RIDER) project sponsored by The Cancer Imaging Archive included MRIs on a phantom comprised of 18 25-mm doped, gel-filled tubes, and 1 20-mm tube containing 0.25 mM Gd-DTPA (EuroSpinII Test Object5, Diagnostic Sonar, Ltd, West Lothian, Scotland). MRIs performed on a 1.5 T GE HD, 1.5 T Siemens Espree (VB13), or 3.0 T GE HD with TwinSpeed gradients with an eight-channel head coil included T1WIs with multiple flip angles (flip-angle = 2,5,10,15,20,25,30), TR/TE = 4.09-5.47/0.90-1.35 ms, NEX = 1 and DCE with 30° flip-angle, TR/TE=4.09-5.47/0.90-1.35, and NEX = 1,4. DICOM data were imported into an in-house developed texture analysis program which extracted 41-texture features including histogram, gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), and gray-level run-length (GLRL). Two-tailed t tests, corrected for multiple comparisons (Q values) were calculated to compare changes in texture features with variations in MRI scanning parameters (magnet strength, flip-angle, number of excitations (NEX), scanner platform).

resultsSignificant differences were seen in histogram features (mean, median, standard deviation, range) with variations in NEX (Q = 0.003-0.045) and scanner platform (Q < 0.0001), GLCM features (entropy, contrast, energy, and homogeneity) with NEX (Q = 0.001-0.018) and scanner platform (Q < 0.0001), GLRL features (long-run emphasis, high gray-level run emphasis, high gray-level emphasis) with magnet strength (Q = 0.0003), NEX (Q = 0.003-0.022) and scanner platform (Q < 0.0001).

conclusionSignificant differences were seen in many texture features with variations in MRI acquisition emphasizing the need for standardized MRI technique.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPhantoms, ImagingHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assistedphantomquantitative MRItexture analysis

Identifiers

PMID30369010
PMCPMC6236836

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.