Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32647917›Full record

ReviewStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2020

Radiomics in radiation oncology-basics, methods, and limitations.

Philipp Lohmann, Khaled Bousabarah, Mauritius Hoevels, Harald Treuer

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Philipp LohmannInstitute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-4), Research Center Juelich, Wilhelm-Johnen-Str., 52428, Juelich, Germany. p.lohmann@fz-juelich.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5360-046X
Khaled BousabarahDepartment of Stereotaxy and Functional Neurosurgery, Center for Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Mauritius HoevelsDepartment of Stereotaxy and Functional Neurosurgery, Center for Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Harald TreuerDepartment of Stereotaxy and Functional Neurosurgery, Center for Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEForschungszentrum Jülich · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past years, the quantity and complexity of imaging data available for the clinical management of patients with solid tumors has increased substantially. Without the support of methods from the field of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, a complete evaluation of the available image information is hardly feasible in clinical routine. Especially in radiotherapy planning, manual detection and segmentation of lesions is laborious, time consuming, and shows significant variability among observers. Here, AI already offers techniques to support radiation oncologists, whereby ultimately, the productivity and the quality are increased, potentially leading to an improved patient outcome. Besides detection and segmentation of lesions, AI allows the extraction of a vast number of quantitative imaging features from structural or functional imaging data that are typically not accessible by means of human perception. These features can be used alone or in combination with other clinical parameters to generate mathematical models that allow, for example, prediction of the response to radiotherapy. Within the large field of AI, radiomics is the subdiscipline that deals with the extraction of quantitative image features as well as the generation of predictive or prognostic mathematical models. This review gives an overview of the basics, methods, and limitations of radiomics, with a focus on patients with brain tumors treated by radiation therapy.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputational BiologyBrain NeoplasmsDatasets as TopicDeep LearningHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalNeuroimagingRadiation OncologyRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsWorkflowArtificial intelligenceDeep learningMachine learningMultiparametric positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI)RadiotherapyTextural features

Identifiers

PMID32647917
PMCPMC7498498
OpenAlexW3042073415

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.