ArticlePloS one2020
Are quantitative features of lung nodules reproducible at different CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters?
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of CT acquisition settings on the stability of radiomic features and the performance of pulmonary nodule classification models.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Effect of slice thickness on quantitative analysis of interstitial lung disease: a retrospective volumetric chest CT study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-based automated matching of pulmonary nodules on follow-up chest CT.European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Can CT Image Reconstruction Parameters Impact the Predictive Value of Radiomics Features in Grading Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms?Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Robust radiomics: a review of guidelines for radiomics in medical imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Finding Reproducible and Prognostic Radiomic Features in Variable Slice Thickness Contrast Enhanced CT of Colorectal Liver Metastases.The journal of machine learning for biomedical imaging · 2025Article
- Best imaging signs identified by radiomics could outperform the model: application to differentiating lung carcinoid tumors from atypical hamartomas.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Impact of slice thickness on reproducibility of CT radiomic features of lung tumors.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Impact of image filtering and assessment of volume-confounding effects on CT radiomic features and derived survival models in non-small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2022Article
- Reproducibility of radiomic features in CT images of NSCLC patients: an integrative analysis on the impact of acquisition and reconstruction parameters.European radiology experimental · 2022Article
- A systematic review and quality of reporting checklist for repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Review
- Influence of Adaptive Statistical Iterative Reconstructions on CT Radiomic Features in Oncologic Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Quality control of radiomic features using 3D-printed CT phantoms.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021Article
- Development of a Radiomics Prediction Model for Histological Type Diagnosis in Solitary Pulmonary Nodules: The Combination of CT and FDG PET.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- A Non-invasive Method to Diagnose Lung Adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consistency and duplicability in Computed Tomography (CT) output is essential to quantitative imaging for lung cancer detection and monitoring. This study of CT-detected lung nodules investigated the reproducibility of volume-, density-, and texture-based features (outcome variables) over routine ranges of radiation dose, reconstruction kernel, and slice thickness. CT raw data of 23 nodules were reconstructed using 320 acquisition/reconstruction conditions (combinations of 4 doses, 10 kernels, and 8 thicknesses). Scans at 12.5%, 25%, and 50% of protocol dose were simulated; reduced-dose and full-dose data were reconstructed using conventional filtered back-projection and iterative-reconstruction kernels at a range of thicknesses (0.6-5.0 mm). Full-dose/B50f kernel reconstructions underwent expert segmentation for reference Region-Of-Interest (ROI) and nodule volume per thickness; each ROI was applied to 40 corresponding images (combinations of 4 doses and 10 kernels). Typical texture analysis metrics (including 5 histogram features, 13 Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix, 5 Run Length Matrix, 2 Neighboring Gray-Level Dependence Matrix, and 3 Neighborhood Gray-Tone Difference Matrix) were computed per ROI. Reconstruction conditions resulting in no significant change in volume, density, or texture metrics were identified as "compatible pairs" for a given outcome variable. Our results indicate that as thickness increases, volumetric reproducibility decreases, while reproducibility of histogram- and texture-based features across different acquisition and reconstruction parameters improves. To achieve concomitant reproducibility of volumetric and radiomic results across studies, balanced standardization of the imaging acquisition parameters is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.