Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34143830›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Effect of grey-level discretization on texture feature on different weighted MRI images of diverse disease groups.

Gergő Veres, Norman Félix Vas, Martin Lyngby Lassen, Monika Béresová, Aron K Krizsan, Attila Forgács, Ervin Berényi, László Balkay

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Gergő VeresDivision of Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8743-7322
Norman Félix VasDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Translational Imaging, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
Martin Lyngby LassenCedars-Sinai Medical Center, AIM Group, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
Monika BéresováDivision of Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8610-3788
Aron K KrizsanScanomed Nuclear Medicine Center, Debrecen, Hungary.
Attila ForgácsScanomed Nuclear Medicine Center, Debrecen, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-7256-9317
Ervin BerényiDivision of Radiology and Imaging Science, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.
László BalkayDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Translational Imaging, Department of Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany studies of MRI radiomics do not include the discretization method used for the analyses, which might indicate that the discretization methods used are considered irrelevant. Our goals were to compare three frequently used discretization methods (lesion relative resampling (LRR), lesion absolute resampling (LAR) and absolute resampling (AR)) applied to the same data set, along with two different lesion segmentation approaches.

methodsWe analyzed the effects of altering bin widths or bin numbers for the three different sampling methods using 40 texture indices (TIs). The impact was evaluated on brain MRI studies obtained for 71 patients divided into three different disease groups: multiple sclerosis (MS, N = 22), ischemic stroke (IS, N = 22), cancer patients (N = 27). Two different MRI acquisition protocols were considered for all patients, a T2- and a post-contrast 3D T1-weighted MRI sequence. Elliptical and manually drawn VOIs were employed for both imaging series. Three different types of gray-level discretization methods were used: LRR, LAR and AR. Hypothesis tests were done among all diseased and control areas to compare the TI values in these areas. We also did correlation analyses between TI values and lesion volumes.

resultsIn general, no significant differences were reported in the results when employing the AR and LAR discretization methods. It was found that employing 38 TIs introduced variation in the results when the number of bin parameters was altered, suggesting that both the degree and direction of monotonicity between each TI value and binning parameters were characteristic for each TI. Furthermore, while TIs were changing with altering binning values, no changes correlated to neither disease nor the MRI sequence. We found that most indices correlated weakly with the volume, while the correlation coefficients were independent of both diseases analyzed and MR contrast. Several cooccurrence-matrix based texture parameters show a definite higher correlation when employing the LRR discretization method However, with the best correlations obtained for the manually drawn VOI. Hypothesis tests among all disease and control areas (co-lateral hemisphere) revealed that the AR or LAR discretization techniques provide more suitable texture features than LRR. In addition, the manually drawn segmentation gave fewer significantly different TIs than the ellipsoid segmentations. In addition, the amount of TIs with significant differences was increasing with increasing the number of bins, or decreasing bin widths.

conclusionOur findings indicate that the AR discretization method may offer the best texture analysis in MR image assessments. Employing too many bins or too large bin widths might reduce the selection of TIs that can be used for differential diagnosis. In general, more statistically different TIs were observed for elliptical segmentations when compared to the manually drawn VOIs. In the texture analysis of MR studies, studies and publications should report on all important parameters and methods related to data collection, corrections, normalization, discretization, and segmentation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrainBrain NeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedIschemic StrokeMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiple Sclerosis

Identifiers

PMID34143830
PMCPMC8213143

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.