Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36202934›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Robustness of radiomics to variations in segmentation methods in multimodal brain MRI.

M G Poirot, M W A Caan, H G Ruhe, A Bjørnerud, I Groote, L Reneman, H A Marquering

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Insights into radiomics: a comprehensive review for beginners.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors.

M G PoirotDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, L0-148 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.g.poirot@amsterdamumc.nl.
M W A CaanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H G RuheDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, L0-148 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A BjørnerudDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
I GrooteDivision of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Computational Radiology and Artificial Intelligence (CRAI), Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
L RenemanDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, L0-148 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H A MarqueringDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, L0-148 Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics in neuroimaging uses fully automatic segmentation to delineate the anatomical areas for which radiomic features are computed. However, differences among these segmentation methods affect radiomic features to an unknown extent. A scan-rescan dataset (n = 46) of T1-weighted and diffusion tensor images was used. Subjects were split into a sleep-deprivation and a control group. Scans were segmented using four segmentation methods from which radiomic features were computed. First, we measured segmentation agreement using the Dice-coefficient. Second, robustness and reproducibility of radiomic features were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Last, difference in predictive power was assessed using the Friedman-test on performance in a radiomics-based sleep deprivation classification application. Segmentation agreement was generally high (interquartile range = 0.77-0.90) and median feature robustness to segmentation method variation was higher (ICC > 0.7) than scan-rescan reproducibility (ICC 0.3-0.8). However, classification performance differed significantly among segmentation methods (p < 0.001) ranging from 77 to 84%. Accuracy was higher for more recent deep learning-based segmentation methods. Despite high agreement among segmentation methods, subtle differences significantly affected radiomic features and their predictive power. Consequently, the effect of differences in segmentation methods should be taken into account when designing and evaluating radiomics-based research methods.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingBrainHumansNeuroimagingReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID36202934
PMCPMC9537186

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.