Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31222919›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2019

Reliability of CT-based texture features: Phantom study.

Bino A Varghese, Darryl Hwang, Steven Y Cen, Joshua Levy, Derek Liu, Christopher Lau, Marielena Rivas, Bhushan Desai, David J Goodenough, Vinay A Duddalwar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Radiomics and Back Pain.Global spine journal · 2026
    Review
  3. Influence of scan mode, tilt, and radiation dose on CT radiomic metrics.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bino A VargheseDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Darryl HwangDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Steven Y CenDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joshua LevyThe Phantom Laboratory, Greenwich, NY, USA.
Derek LiuDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Christopher LauDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Marielena RivasDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Bhushan DesaiDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David J GoodenoughDepartment of Radiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Vinay A DuddalwarDept. of Radiology, Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
University of Southern California · USGeorge Washington University · USGreenwich Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the intra-, inter- and test-retest variability of CT-based texture analysis (CTTA) metrics. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this study, we conducted a series of CT imaging experiments using a texture phantom to evaluate the performance of a CTTA panel on routine abdominal imaging protocols. The phantom comprises of three different regions with various textures found in tumors. The phantom was scanned on two CT scanners viz. the Philips Brilliance 64 CT and Toshiba Aquilion Prime 160 CT scanners. The intra-scanner variability of the CTTA metrics was evaluated across imaging parameters such as slice thickness, field of view, post-reconstruction filtering, tube voltage, and tube current. For each scanner and scanning parameter combination, we evaluated the performance of eight different types of texture quantification techniques on a predetermined region of interest (ROI) within the phantom image using 235 different texture metrics. We conducted the repeatability (test-retest) and robustness (intra-scanner) test on both the scanners and the reproducibility test was conducted by comparing the inter-scanner differences in the repeatability and robustness to identify reliable CTTA metrics. Reliable metrics are those metrics that are repeatable, reproducible and robust.

resultsAs expected, the robustness, repeatability and reproducibility of CTTA metrics are variably sensitive to various scanner and scanning parameters. Entropy of Fast Fourier Transform-based texture metrics was overall most reliable across the two scanners and scanning conditions. Post-processing techniques that reduce image noise while preserving the underlying edges associated with true anatomy or pathology bring about significant differences in radiomic reliability compared to when they were not used.

conclusionFollowing large-scale validation, identification of reliable CTTA metrics can aid in conducting large-scale multicenter CTTA analysis using sample sets acquired using different imaging protocols, scanners etc.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsPhantoms, ImagingTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray Computedcomputed tomographyimagingphantom studyreliabilitytexture analysis

Identifiers

PMID31222919
PMCPMC6698768
OpenAlexW2952088836

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.