Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35633866›Full record

ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2022

Robustness of radiomic features in magnetic resonance imaging for patients with glioblastoma: Multi-center study.

Natalia Saltybaeva, Stephanie Tanadini-Lang, Diem Vuong, Simon Burgermeister, Michael Mayinger, Andrea Bink, Nicolaus Andratschke, Matthias Guckenberger, Marta Bogowicz

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Robust vs. Non-robust radiomic features: the quest for optimal machine learning models using phantom and clinical studies.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Natalia SaltybaevaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Stephanie Tanadini-LangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Diem VuongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Simon BurgermeisterDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael MayingerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Andrea BinkDepartment of Neuroradiology and Clinical Neuroscience Center, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nicolaus AndratschkeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Matthias GuckenbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marta BogowiczDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: Radiomics offers great potential in improving diagnosis and treatment for patients with glioblastoma multiforme. However, in order to implement radiomics in clinical routine, the features used for prognostic modelling need to be stable. This comprises significant challenge in multi-center studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of different image normalization methods on MRI features robustness in multi-center study. Methods: Radiomics stability was checked on magnetic resonance images of eleven patients. The images were acquired in two different hospitals using contrast-enhanced T1 sequences. The images were normalized using one of five investigated approaches including grey-level discretization, histogram matching and z-score. Then, radiomic features were extracted and features stability was evaluated using intra-class correlation coefficients. In the second part of the study, improvement in the prognostic performance of features was tested on 60 patients derived from publicly available dataset. Results: Depending on the normalization scheme, the percentage of stable features varied from 3.4% to 8%. The histogram matching based on the tumor region showed the highest amount of the stable features (113/1404); while normalization using fixed bin size resulted in 48 stable features. The histogram matching also led to better prognostic value (median c-index increase of 0.065) comparing to non-normalized images. Conclusions: MRI normalization plays an important role in radiomics. Appropriate normalization helps to select robust features, which can be used for prognostic modelling in multicenter studies. In our study, histogram matching based on tumor region improved both stability of radiomic features and their prognostic value.

Indexed as

Features stabilityGlioblastoma multiformeImage normalizationPrognostic modellingRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID35633866
PMCPMC9130546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.