Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34076740›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2021

CT and MRI radiomics of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas: a systematic review of reproducibility and validation strategies.

Salvatore Gitto, Renato Cuocolo, Domenico Albano, Francesco Morelli, Lorenzo Carlo Pescatori, Carmelo Messina, Massimo Imbriaco, Luca Maria Sconfienza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Salvatore GittoDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy. sal.gitto@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3623-7822
Renato CuocoloDipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Chirurgia, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Domenico AlbanoIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Francesco MorelliASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Lorenzo Carlo PescatoriAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Service d'Imagerie Médicale, CHU Henri Mondor, Créteil, France.
Carmelo MessinaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.
Massimo ImbriacoDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche Avanzate, Università degli Studi di Napoli "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Luca Maria SconfienzaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeature reproducibility and model validation are two main challenges of radiomics. This study aims to systematically review radiomic feature reproducibility and predictive model validation strategies in studies dealing with CT and MRI radiomics of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. The ultimate goal is to promote achieving a consensus on these aspects in radiomic workflows and facilitate clinical transferability.

resultsOut of 278 identified papers, forty-nine papers published between 2008 and 2020 were included. They dealt with radiomics of bone (n = 12) or soft-tissue (n = 37) tumors. Eighteen (37%) studies included a feature reproducibility analysis. Inter-/intra-reader segmentation variability was the theme of reproducibility analysis in 16 (33%) investigations, outnumbering the analyses focused on image acquisition or post-processing (n = 2, 4%). The intraclass correlation coefficient was the most commonly used statistical method to assess reproducibility, which ranged from 0.6 and 0.9. At least one machine learning validation technique was used for model development in 25 (51%) papers, and K-fold cross-validation was the most commonly employed. A clinical validation of the model was reported in 19 (39%) papers. It was performed using a separate dataset from the primary institution (i.e., internal validation) in 14 (29%) studies and an independent dataset related to different scanners or from another institution (i.e., independent validation) in 5 (10%) studies.

conclusionsThe issues of radiomic feature reproducibility and model validation varied largely among the studies dealing with musculoskeletal sarcomas and should be addressed in future investigations to bring the field of radiomics from a preclinical research area to the clinical stage.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceRadiomicsSarcomaTexture analysis

Identifiers

PMID34076740
PMCPMC8172744

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.