Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36673068›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Robustness of Radiomic Features: Two-Dimensional versus Three-Dimensional MRI-Based Feature Reproducibility in Lipomatous Soft-Tissue Tumors.

Narumol Sudjai, Palanan Siriwanarangsun, Nittaya Lektrakul, Pairash Saiviroonporn, Sorranart Maungsomboon, Rapin Phimolsarnti, Apichat Asavamongkolkul, Chandhanarat Chandhanayingyong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Development and validation of MRI-based models to predict lymph node metastasis in bladder cancer: a multi-center study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Narumol SudjaiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Palanan SiriwanarangsunDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Nittaya LektrakulDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Pairash SaiviroonpornDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Sorranart MaungsomboonDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Rapin PhimolsarntiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Apichat AsavamongkolkulDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Chandhanarat ChandhanayingyongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Siriraj Hospital · THMahidol University · TH

Funding

Siriraj Hospital [IO] R016332025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This retrospective study aimed to compare the intra- and inter-observer manual-segmentation variability in the feature reproducibility between two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomic features. The study included patients with lipomatous soft-tissue tumors that were diagnosed with histopathology and underwent MRI scans. Tumor segmentation based on the 2D and 3D MRI images was performed by two observers to assess the intra- and inter-observer variability. In both the 2D and the 3D segmentations, the radiomic features were extracted from the normalized images. Regarding the stability of the features, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer segmentation variability. Features with ICC > 0.75 were considered reproducible. The degree of feature robustness was classified as low, moderate, or high. Additionally, we compared the efficacy of 2D and 3D contour-focused segmentation in terms of the effects of the stable feature rate, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of machine learning on the reproducible features. In total, 93 and 107 features were extracted from the 2D and 3D images, respectively. Only 35 features from the 2D images and 63 features from the 3D images were reproducible. The stable feature rate for the 3D segmentation was more significant than for the 2D segmentation (58.9% vs. 37.6%, p = 0.002). The majority of the features for the 3D segmentation had moderate-to-high robustness, while 40.9% of the features for the 2D segmentation had low robustness. The diagnostic accuracy of the machine-learning model for the 2D segmentation was close to that for the 3D segmentation (88% vs. 90%). In both the 2D and the 3D segmentation, the specificity values were equal to 100%. However, the sensitivity for the 2D segmentation was lower than for the 3D segmentation (75% vs. 83%). For the 2D + 3D radiomic features, the model achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 87% (sensitivity, 100%, and specificity, 80%). Both 2D and 3D MRI-based radiomic features of lipomatous soft-tissue tumors are reproducible. With a higher stable feature rate, 3D contour-focused segmentation should be selected for the feature-extraction process.

Indexed as

feature reproducibilitylipomatous soft-tissue tumorsradiomicsT1-weighted magnetic-resonance imagingtumor segmentation

Identifiers

PMID36673068
PMCPMC9858448
OpenAlexW4315648279

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.