ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
Quality reporting of radiomics analysis in pituitary adenomas: promoting clinical translation.
Article in The British journal of 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.
- Radiomics and artificial intelligence in pituitary adenomas (PitNETs): from imaging biomarkers to clinical translation.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2026Review
- Mapping Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumors: An Annotated MRI Dataset Profiling Tumor and Carotid Characteristics.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Robust radiomics: a review of guidelines for radiomics in medical imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Is radiomics a useful addition to magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative classification of PitNETs?Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Article
- The current state of MRI-based radiomics in pituitary adenoma: promising but challenging.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Review
- The Party Wall: Redefining the Indications of Transcranial Approaches for Giant Pituitary Adenomas in Endoscopic Era.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the quality of radiomics studies on pituitary adenoma according to the radiomics quality score (RQS) and Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD).
methodsPubMed MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify radiomics studies on pituitary adenomas. From 138 articles, 20 relevant original research articles were included. Studies were scored based on RQS and TRIPOD guidelines.
resultsMost included studies did not perform pre-processing; isovoxel resampling, signal intensity normalization, and N4 bias field correction were performed in only five (25%), eight (40%), and four (20%) studies, respectively. Only two (10%) studies performed external validation. The mean RQS and basic adherence rate were 2.8 (7.6%) and 26.6%, respectively. There was a low adherence rate for conducting comparison to "gold-standard" (20%), multiple segmentation (25%), and stating potential clinical utility (25%). No study stated the biological correlation, conducted a test-retest or phantom study, was a prospective study, conducted cost-effectiveness analysis, or provided open-source code and data, which resulted in low-level evidence. The overall adherence rate for TRIPOD was 54.6%, and it was low for reporting the title (5%), abstract (0%), explaining the sample size (10%), and suggesting a full prediction model (5%).
conclusionThe radiomics reporting quality for pituitary adenoma is insufficient. Pre-processing is required for feature reproducibility and external validation is necessary. Feature reproducibility, clinical utility demonstration, higher evidence levels, and open science are required. Titles, abstracts, and full prediction model suggestions should be improved for transparent reporting. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Despite the rapidly increasing number of radiomics researches on pituitary adenoma, the quality of science in these researches is unknown. Our study indicates that the overall quality needs to be significantly improved in radiomics studies on pituitary adenoma, and since the concept of RQS and IBSI is still unfamiliar to clinicians and radiologist researchers, our study may help to reach higher technical and clinical impact in the future study.
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.