Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33434374›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

Identification of robust and reproducible CT-texture metrics using a customized 3D-printed texture phantom.

Bino A Varghese, Darryl Hwang, Steven Y Cen, Xiaomeng Lei, Joshua Levy, Bhushan Desai, David J Goodenough, Vinay A Duddalwar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Radiomics and Back Pain.Global spine journal · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

8 authors.

Bino A VargheseDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0508-2899
Darryl HwangDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Steven Y CenDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Xiaomeng LeiDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8899-5177
Joshua LevyThe Phantom Laboratory, Greenwich, NY, USA.
Bhushan DesaiDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9998-0536
David J GoodenoughDepartment of Radiology, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Vinay A DuddalwarDepartment of Radiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4808-5715

Funding

Integrated radiomic and liquid biopsy monitoring in SWOG S1802: A phase 3 therapeutic trial for metastatic prostate cancerR01CA257610 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI DUDDALWAR, VINAY, GOLDKORN, AMIR · 2021 to 2025
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA257610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate the robustness and reproducibility of computed tomography-based texture analysis (CTTA) metrics extracted from CT images of a customized texture phantom built for assessing the association of texture metrics to three-dimensional (3D) printed progressively increasing textural heterogeneity. MATERIALS AND

methodsA custom-built 3D-printed texture phantom comprising of six texture patterns was used to evaluate the robustness and reproducibility of a radiomics panel under a variety of routine abdominal imaging protocols. The phantom was scanned on four CT scanners (Philips, Canon, GE, and Siemens) to assess reproducibility. The robustness assessment was conducted by imaging the texture phantom across different CT imaging parameters such as slice thickness, field of view (FOV), tube voltage, and tube current for each scanner. The texture panel comprised of 387 features belonging to 15 subgroups of texture extraction methods (e.g., Gray-level Co-occurrence Matrix: GLCM). Twelve unique image settings were tested on all the four scanners (e.g., FOV125). Interclass correlation two-way mixed with absolute agreement (ICC3) was used to assess the robustness and reproducibility of radiomic features. Linear regression was used to test the association between change in radiomic features and increased texture heterogeneity. Results were summarized in heat maps.

resultsA total of 5612 (23.2%) of 24 090 features showed excellent robustness and reproducibility (ICC ≥ 0.9). Intensity, GLCM 3D, and gray-level run length matrix (GLRLM) 3D features showed best performance. Among imaging variables, changes in slice thickness affected all metrics more intensely compared to other imaging variables in reducing the ICC3. From the analysis of linear trend effect of the CTTA metrics, the top three metrics with high linear correlations across all scanners and scanning settings were from the GLRLM 2D/3D and discrete cosine transform (DCT) texture family.

conclusionThe choice of scanner and imaging protocols affect texture metrics. Furthermore, not all CTTA metrics have a linear association with linearly varying texture patterns.

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingPrinting, Three-DimensionalReproducibility of Resultscomputed tomographyphantom studyradiomicsreproducibilityrobustnesstexture analysis

Identifiers

PMID33434374
PMCPMC7882093

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.