Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34603997›Full record

ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2021

Radiomics feature reliability assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient: a systematic review.

Cindy Xue, Jing Yuan, Gladys G Lo, Amy T Y Chang, Darren M C Poon, Oi Lei Wong, Yihang Zhou, Winnie C W Chu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 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

8 authors.

Cindy XueMedical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Jing YuanMedical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Gladys G LoDepartment of Diagnostic & Interventional Radiology, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Amy T Y ChangComprehensive Oncology Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Darren M C PoonComprehensive Oncology Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Oi Lei WongMedical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Yihang ZhouMedical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Winnie C W ChuDepartment of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics research is rapidly growing in recent years, but more concerns on radiomics reliability are also raised. This review attempts to update and overview the current status of radiomics reliability research in the ever expanding medical literature from the perspective of a single reliability metric of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). To conduct this systematic review, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. After literature search and selection, a total of 481 radiomics studies using CT, PET, or MRI, covering a wide range of subject and disease types, were included for review. In these highly heterogeneous studies, feature reliability to image segmentation was much more investigated than reliability to other factors, such as image acquisition, reconstruction, post-processing, and feature quantification. The reported ICCs also suggested high radiomics feature reliability to image segmentation. Image acquisition was found to introduce much more feature variability than image segmentation, in particular for MRI, based on the reported ICC values. Image post-processing and feature quantification yielded different levels of radiomics reliability and might be used to mitigate image acquisition-induced variability. Some common flaws and pitfalls in ICC use were identified, and suggestions on better ICC use were given. Due to the extremely high study heterogeneities and possible risks of bias, the degree of radiomics feature reliability that has been achieved could not yet be safely synthesized or derived in this review. More future researches on radiomics reliability are warranted.

Indexed as

intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)oncologyquantitative imagingRadiomicsreliability

Identifiers

PMID34603997
PMCPMC8408801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.