Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37071161›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Quo vadis Radiomics? Bibliometric analysis of 10-year Radiomics journey.

Stefania Volpe, Federico Mastroleo, Marco Krengli, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Stable or not? unraveling the reliability of radiomic features in 4d-computed tomography in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  4. Translational barriers to digital twins in radiation oncology.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

4 authors.

Stefania VolpeDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Federico MastroleoDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy. federico.mastroleo@ieo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6580-6767
Marco KrengliDepartment of Translational Medicine, University of Piemonte Orientale, Via Solaroli 17, 28100, Novara, Italy.
Barbara Alicja Jereczek-FossaDivision of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRadiomics is the high-throughput extraction of mineable and-possibly-reproducible quantitative imaging features from medical imaging. The aim of this work is to perform an unbiased bibliometric analysis on Radiomics 10 years after the first work became available, to highlight its status, pitfalls, and growing interest.

methodsScopus database was used to investigate all the available English manuscripts about Radiomics. R Bibliometrix package was used for data analysis: a cumulative analysis of document categories, authors affiliations, country scientific collaborations, institution collaboration networks, keyword analysis, comprehensive of co-occurrence network, thematic map analysis, and 2021 sub-analysis of trend topics was performed.

resultsA total of 5623 articles and 16,833 authors from 908 different sources have been identified. The first available document was published in March 2012, while the most recent included was released on the 31st of December 2021. China and USA were the most productive countries. Co-occurrence network analysis identified five words clusters based on top 50 authors' keywords: Radiomics, computed tomography, radiogenomics, deep learning, tomography. Trend topics analysis for 2021 showed an increased interest in artificial intelligence (n = 286), nomogram (n = 166), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 125), COVID-19 (n = 63), and X-ray computed (n = 60).

conclusionsOur work demonstrates the importance of bibliometrics in aggregating information that otherwise would not be available in a granular analysis, detecting unknown patterns in Radiomics publications, while highlighting potential developments to ensure knowledge dissemination in the field and its future real-life applications in the clinical practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This work aims to shed light on the state of the art in radiomics, which offers numerous tangible and intangible benefits, and to encourage its integration in the contemporary clinical practice for more precise imaging analysis. KEY POINTS: • ML-based bibliometric analysis is fundamental to detect unknown pattern of data in Radiomics publications. • A raising interest in the field, the most relevant collaborations, keywords co-occurrence network, and trending topics have been investigated. • Some pitfalls still exist, including the scarce standardization and the relative lack of homogeneity across studies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Liver NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceBibliometricsHumansTomography, X-Ray ComputedBibliometricsDiagnostic imagingMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID37071161
PMCPMC10110486

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.