ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2022
Rectal MRI radiomics inter- and intra-reader reliability: should we worry about that?
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and four advanced diffusion-weighted MRI models for meningioma grading and subtyping.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Review
- Reliability of rectal MRI radiomic features: Comparing rectal MRI radiomic features across reader expertise levels, image segmentation technique, and timing of rectal MRI in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.European journal of radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this review paper is to summarize the current literature regarding inter- and intra-reader reliability of radiomics on rectal MRI.
methodsOriginal studies examining treatment response prediction in patients with rectal cancer following neoadjuvant therapy using rectal MRI-based radiomics between January 2010 and December 2021 were identified via a PubMed/Medline search. Studies in which intra- and/or inter-reader reliability had been reported were included in this review.
resultsThirteen studies were selected, with an average number of patients of 145 (range, 20-649). All included studies evaluated T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and/or diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences, while 3/13 (23%) also evaluated the contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging (T1WI) sequence. Most of the selected studies involved two readers (10/13, 77%), 6/13 (46%) studies used baseline MRI only, 1/13 (8%) study used restaging MRI only, and 6/13 (46%) used both. Segmentation was performed manually in 10/13 (77%) studies, and in a slight majority of studies (7/13, 54%), the entire tumor volume (3D VOI) was segmented, while 4/13 (31%) studies segmented the 2D ROI and 2/13 (15%) segmented both. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on intra-reader agreement varied from 0.73 to 0.93. ICC to assess inter-reader varied from 0.60 to 0.99. Overall, features obtained from baseline rectal MRI, using 3D VOI and first-order features, had higher agreement.
conclusionBased on our qualitative assessment of a small number of non-dedicated studies, there seems to be good reliability, particularly among low-order features extracted from the entire tumor volume using baseline MRI; however, direct evidence remains scarce. More targeted research in this area is required to quantitatively verify reliability, and before these novel radiomic techniques can be clinically adopted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.