Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33961646›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

The application of a workflow integrating the variable reproducibility and harmonizability of radiomic features on a phantom dataset.

Abdalla Ibrahim, Turkey Refaee, Ralph T H Leijenaar, Sergey Primakov, Roland Hustinx, Felix M Mottaghy, Henry C Woodruff, Andrew D A Maidment, Philippe Lambin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

9 authors.

Abdalla IbrahimThe D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW- School for Oncology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4138-5755
Turkey RefaeeThe D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW- School for Oncology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ralph T H LeijenaarOncoradiomics SA, Liege, Belgium.
Sergey PrimakovThe D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW- School for Oncology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Roland HustinxDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Oncological Imaging, Department of Medical Physics, University Hospital of Liège and GIGA CRC-in vivo imaging, University of Liège, Liege, Belgium.
Felix M MottaghyDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Henry C WoodruffThe D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW- School for Oncology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Andrew D A MaidmentDepartment of Radiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Philippe LambinThe D-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW- School for Oncology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics-the high throughput extraction of quantitative features from medical images and their correlation with clinical and biological endpoints- is the subject of active and extensive research. Although the field shows promise, the generalizability of radiomic signatures is affected significantly by differences in scan acquisition and reconstruction settings. Previous studies reported on the sensitivity of radiomic features (RFs) to test-retest variability, inter-observer segmentation variability, and intra-scanner variability. A framework involving robust radiomics analysis and the application of a post-reconstruction feature harmonization method using ComBat was recently proposed to address these challenges. In this study, we investigated the reproducibility of RFs across different scanners and scanning parameters using this framework. We analysed thirteen scans of a ten-layer phantom that were acquired differently. Each layer was subdivided into sixteen regions of interest (ROIs), and the scans were compared in a pairwise manner, resulting in seventy-eight different scenarios. Ninety-one RFs were extracted from each ROI. As hypothesized, we demonstrate that the reproducibility of a given RF is not a constant but is dependent on the heterogeneity found in the data under analysis. The number (%) of reproducible RFs varied across the pairwise scenarios investigated, having a wide range between 8 (8.8%) and 78 (85.7%) RFs. Furthermore, in contrast to what has been previously reported, and as hypothesized in the robust radiomics analysis framework, our results demonstrate that ComBat cannot be applied to all RFs but rather on a percentage of those-the "ComBatable" RFs-which differed depending on the data being harmonized. The number (%) of reproducible RFs following ComBat harmonization varied across the pairwise scenarios investigated, ranging from 14 (15.4%) to 80 (87.9%) RFs, and was found to depend on the heterogeneity in the data. We conclude that the standardization of image acquisition protocols remains the cornerstone for improving the reproducibility of RFs, and the generalizability of the signatures developed. Our proposed approach helps identify the reproducible RFs across different datasets.

Indexed as

WorkflowHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID33961646
PMCPMC8104396

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.