ArticleInsights into imaging2022
Predictive performance of radiomic models based on features extracted from pretrained deep networks.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of myocardial infarction by postmortem CT combined with radiomics-based machine-learning analysis.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- AI-MIRACLE: Artificial Intelligence and MultIpaRAmetric MRI Predict CLinical OutcomEs to Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Patients with Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer Undergoing Radical Cystectomy.European urology oncology · 2026Article
- The effect of data resampling methods in radiomics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Deep learning and machine learning predictive models for neurological function after interventional embolization of intracranial aneurysms.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Deep Features from Pretrained Networks Do Not Outperform Hand-Crafted Features in Radiomics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn radiomics, generic texture and morphological features are often used for modeling. Recently, features extracted from pretrained deep networks have been used as an alternative. However, extracting deep features involves several decisions, and it is unclear how these affect the resulting models. Therefore, in this study, we considered the influence of such choices on the predictive performance.
methodsOn ten publicly available radiomic datasets, models were trained using feature sets that differed in terms of the utilized network architecture, the layer of feature extraction, the used set of slices, the use of segmentation, and the aggregation method. The influence of these choices on the predictive performance was measured using a linear mixed model. In addition, models with generic features were trained and compared in terms of predictive performance and correlation.
resultsNo single choice consistently led to the best-performing models. In the mixed model, the choice of architecture (AUC + 0.016; p < 0.001), the level of feature extraction (AUC + 0.016; p < 0.001), and using all slices (AUC + 0.023; p < 0.001) were highly significant; using the segmentation had a lower influence (AUC + 0.011; p = 0.023), while the aggregation method was insignificant (p = 0.774). Models based on deep features were not significantly better than those based on generic features (p > 0.05 on all datasets). Deep feature sets correlated moderately with each other (r = 0.4), in contrast to generic feature sets (r = 0.89).
conclusionsDifferent choices have a significant effect on the predictive performance of the resulting models; however, for the highest performance, these choices should be optimized during cross-validation.
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.