Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33597610›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Radiomics feature robustness as measured using an MRI phantom.

Joonsang Lee, Angela Steinmann, Yao Ding, Hannah Lee, Constance Owens, Jihong Wang, Jinzhong Yang, David Followill, Rachel Ger, Dennis MacKin and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing 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

64 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Robust vs. Non-robust radiomic features: the quest for optimal machine learning models using phantom and clinical studies.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

11 authors.

Joonsang LeeDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Angela SteinmannDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Yao DingDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Hannah LeeDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Constance OwensDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jihong WangDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0073-7443
Jinzhong YangDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9254-4501
David FollowillDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Rachel GerDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1244-7160
Dennis MacKinDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2557-5340
Laurence E CourtDepartment of Radiation Physics, Unit 1420, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. lecourt@mdanderson.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics involves high-throughput extraction of large numbers of quantitative features from medical images and analysis of these features to predict patients' outcome and support clinical decision-making. However, radiomics features are sensitive to several factors, including scanning protocols. The purpose of this study was to investigate the robustness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) radiomics features with various MRI scanning protocol parameters and scanners using an MRI radiomics phantom. The variability of the radiomics features with different scanning parameters and repeatability measured using a test-retest scheme were evaluated using the coefficient of variation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for both T1- and T2-weighted images. For variability measures, the features were categorized into three groups: large, intermediate, and small variation. For repeatability measures, the average T1- and T2-weighted image ICCs for the phantom (0.963 and 0.959, respectively) were higher than those for a healthy volunteer (0.856 and 0.849, respectively). Our results demonstrated that various radiomics features are dependent on different scanning parameters and scanners. The radiomics features with a low coefficient of variation and high ICC for both the phantom and volunteer can be considered good candidates for MRI radiomics studies. The results of this study will assist current and future MRI radiomics studies.

Identifiers

PMID33597610
PMCPMC7889870

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.