Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33057454›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Are quantitative features of lung nodules reproducible at different CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters?

Barbaros S Erdal, Mutlu Demirer, Kevin J Little, Chiemezie C Amadi, Gehan F M Ibrahim, Thomas P O'Donnell, Rainer Grimmer, Vikash Gupta, Luciano M Prevedello, Richard D White

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Quality control of radiomic features using 3D-printed CT phantoms.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors.

Barbaros S ErdalDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3637-0102
Mutlu DemirerDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6842-282X
Kevin J LittleDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-7241-0012
Chiemezie C AmadiDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Gehan F M IbrahimDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Thomas P O'DonnellSiemens Healthineers, Malvern, Pennsylvania, United States of America and Erlangen, Germany.
Rainer GrimmerSiemens Healthineers, Malvern, Pennsylvania, United States of America and Erlangen, Germany.
Vikash GuptaDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Luciano M PrevedelloDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Richard D WhiteDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMultiple Pulmonary NodulesReproducibility of ResultsSolitary Pulmonary NoduleTomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID33057454
PMCPMC7561205

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.