Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33440685›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Image Contrast, Image Pre-Processing, and T

Damien J McHugh, Nuria Porta, Ross A Little, Susan Cheung, Yvonne Watson, Geoff J M Parker, Gordon C Jayson, James P B O'Connor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Radiomics in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: state of the art.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Radiomics in Oncology: A Practical Guide.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2021
    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.

Damien J McHughDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1446-5883
Nuria PortaClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, Institute of Cancer Research, London SW3 6JB, UK.
Ross A LittleDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Susan CheungDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Yvonne WatsonDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
Geoff J M ParkerCentre for Medical Image Computing, University College London, London WC1V 6LJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2934-2234
Gordon C JaysonDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.
James P B O'ConnorDivision of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25351Cancer Research UK C147/A18083Cancer Research UK C19221/A22746Cancer Research UK C19221/A28683
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging biomarkers require technical, biological, and clinical validation to be translated into robust tools in research or clinical settings. This study contributes to the technical validation of radiomic features from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by evaluating the repeatability of features from four MR sequences: pre-contrast T1- and T2-weighted images, pre-contrast quantitative T1 maps (qT1), and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. Fifty-one patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases were scanned twice, up to 7 days apart. Repeatability was quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and repeatability coefficient (RC), and the impact of non-Gaussian feature distributions and image normalisation was evaluated. Most radiomic features had non-Gaussian distributions, but Box-Cox transformations enabled ICCs and RCs to be calculated appropriately for an average of 97% of features across sequences. ICCs ranged from 0.30 to 0.99, with volume and other shape features tending to be most repeatable; volume ICC > 0.98 for all sequences. 19% of features from non-normalised images exhibited significantly different ICCs in pair-wise sequence comparisons. Normalisation tended to increase ICCs for pre-contrast T1- and T2-weighted images, and decrease ICCs for qT1 maps. RCs tended to vary more between sequences than ICCs, showing that evaluations of feature performance depend on the chosen metric. This work suggests that feature-specific repeatability, from specific combinations of MR sequence and pre-processing steps, should be evaluated to select robust radiomic features as biomarkers in specific studies. In addition, as different repeatability metrics can provide different insights into a specific feature, consideration of the appropriate metric should be taken in a study-specific context.

Indexed as

intraclass correlation coefficientliver metastasesMRIradiomicsrepeatabilityrepeatability coefficient

Identifiers

PMID33440685
PMCPMC7826650

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.