SynthesisEuropean radiology2022
Quality assessment of radiomics research in cardiac CT: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incremental prognostic value of CCTA-based myocardial radiomics over clinical factors, anatomic and hemodynamic CTA findings in patients with stable angina.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Methodological quality of cardiac CT and MRI radiomics studies assessed using METRICS and RQS by human readers and ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Robust radiomics: a review of guidelines for radiomics in medical imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Radiomics for predicting survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Methodological quality of radiomic-based prognostic studies in gastric cancer: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in High-Resolution Computed Tomography Scans Using a Combination of Handcrafted Radiomics and Deep Learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the quality of current radiomics research on cardiac CT using radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) systems.
methodsSystematic searches of PubMed and EMBASE were performed to identify all potentially relevant original research articles about cardiac CT radiomics. Fifteen original research articles were selected. Two cardiac radiologists assessed the quality of the methodology adopted in those studies according to the RQS and TRIPOD guidelines. Basic adherence rates for the following six key domains were evaluated: image protocol and reproducibility, feature reduction and validation, biologic/clinical utility, performance index, high level of evidence, and open science.
resultsAmong the 15 included articles, six (40%) were about coronary artery disease and six (40%) were about myocardial infarction. The mean RQS was 9.9 ± 7.3 (27.4% of the ideal score of 36), and the basic adherence rate was 44.6%. Fourteen (93.3%) and nine (60%) studies performed feature selection and validation, but only two (13.3%) of them performed external validation. Two studies (13.3%) were prospective, and only one study (6.7%) conducted calibration analysis and stated the potential clinical utility. None of the studies conducted phantom study and cost-effective analysis. The overall adherence rate for TRIPOD was 63%.
conclusionThe quality of radiomics studies in cardiac CT is currently insufficient. A higher level of evidence is required, and analysis of clinical utility and calibration of model performance need to be improved. KEY POINTS: • The quality of science of radiomics studies in cardiac CT is currently insufficient. • No study conducted a phantom study or cost-effective analysis, with further limitations being demonstrated in a high level of evidence for radiomics studies. • Analysis of clinical utility and calibration of model performance need to be improved, and a higher level of evidence is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34981135What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.