Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37493872›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2023

Radiomics predictive modeling from dual-time-point FDG PET K

Rezvan Samimi, Isaac Shiri, Yashar Ahmadyar, Jörg van den Hoff, Alireza Kamali-Asl, Alireza Rezaee, Fereshteh Yousefirizi, Parham Geramifar, Arman Rahmim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Dual-time-point [EJNMMI research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Baseline [BMC cancer · 2025
    Article
  6. Semiquantitative 2-[Frontiers in medicine · 2024
    Review
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Rezvan SamimiDepartment of Medical Radiation Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Isaac ShiriDivision of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Geneva University Hospital, 1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.
Yashar AhmadyarDepartment of Medical Radiation Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Jörg van den HoffPET Center, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, 01328, Dresden, Germany.
Alireza Kamali-AslDepartment of Medical Radiation Engineering, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. a_r_kamali@yahoo.com.
Alireza RezaeeKhatam PET/CT Center, Khatam Hospital, Tehran, Iran.
Fereshteh YousefiriziDepartment of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Parham GeramifarResearch Center for Nuclear Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. pgeramifar@tums.ac.ir.
Arman RahmimDepartment of Integrative Oncology, BC Cancer Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Shahid Beheshti University · IRHelmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf · DEKhatam University · IRTehran University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

CIHR PJT-173231
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the use of dynamic radiomics features derived from dual-time-point (DTP-feature) [

methodsWe analyzed 126 lesions from 45 lymphoma patients (responding n = 75 and non-responding n = 51) treated with chemotherapy from two different centers. Static and DTP radiomics features were extracted from baseline static PET images and DTP K

resultsVia Spearman's rank correlations, there was negligible to moderate correlation between 32 out of 65 DTP features and some static features (ρ < 0.7); all the other 33 features showed high correlations (ρ ≥ 0.7). In univariate modeling, no significant difference between AUC of DTP and static features was observed. GLRLM_RLNU from static features demonstrated a strong correlation (AUC = 0.75, p value = 0.0001, q value = 0.0007) with therapy response. The most predictive DTP features were GLCM_Energy, GLCM_Entropy, and Uniformity, each with AUC = 0.73, p value = 0.0001, and q value < 0.0005. In multivariate analysis, the mean ranges of AUCs increased following harmonization. Use of harmonization plus combining DTP and static features was shown to provide significantly improved predictions (AUC = 0.97 ± 0.02, accuracy = 0.89 ± 0.05, sensitivity = 0.92 ± 0.09, and specificity = 0.88 ± 0.05). All models depicted significant performance in terms of AUC, ACC, SEN, and SPE (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney test).

conclusionsOur results demonstrate significant value in harmonization of radiomics features as well as combining DTP and static radiomics models for predicting response to chemotherapy in lymphoma patients.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDynamic PETEngineered radiomicsLymphomaPredictive modelRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID37493872
PMCPMC10371962
OpenAlexW4385265014

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.