Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37733025›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2024

Reproducibility of radiomics quality score: an intra- and inter-rater reliability study.

Tugba Akinci D'Antonoli, Armando Ugo Cavallo, Federica Vernuccio, Arnaldo Stanzione, Michail E Klontzas, Roberto Cannella, Lorenzo Ugga, Agah Baran, Salvatore Claudio Fanni, Ekaterina Petrash and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Diagnostic performance of radiomics for predicting osteoporosis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

17 authors.

Tugba Akinci D'AntonoliInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland. tugba.akincidantonoli@unibas.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7237-711X
Armando Ugo CavalloDivision of Radiology, Istituto Dermopatico dell'Immacolata (IDI) IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Federica VernuccioInstitute of Radiology, University Hospital of Padova, Padua, Italy.
Arnaldo StanzioneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Michail E KlontzasDepartment of Medical Imaging, University Hospital of Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Roberto CannellaSection of Radiology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics (BiND), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Lorenzo UggaDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Agah BaranMVZ Diagnostikum Berlin Gmbh, Diagnostisches Zentrum, Berlin, Germany.
Salvatore Claudio FanniDepartment of Translational Research, Academic Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Ekaterina PetrashRadiology Department, Research Institute of Children Oncology and Haematology of National Medical Research Center of Oncology n.a.N.N. Blokhin of Ministry of Health of RF, Moscow, Russia.
Ilaria AmbrosiniDepartment of Translational Research, Academic Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Luca Alessandro CappelliniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Peter van OoijenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Elmar KotterDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Daniel Pinto Dos SantosDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.
EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the total radiomics quality score (RQS) and the reproducibility of individual RQS items' score in a large multireader study.

methodsNine raters with different backgrounds were randomly assigned to three groups based on their proficiency with RQS utilization: Groups 1 and 2 represented the inter-rater reliability groups with or without prior training in RQS, respectively; group 3 represented the intra-rater reliability group. Thirty-three original research papers on radiomics were evaluated by raters of groups 1 and 2. Of the 33 papers, 17 were evaluated twice with an interval of 1 month by raters of group 3. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables, and Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa (k) statistics for categorical variables were used.

resultsThe inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate for total RQS (ICC 0.30-055, p < 0.001) and very low to good for item's reproducibility (k - 0.12 to 0.75) within groups 1 and 2 for both inexperienced and experienced raters. The intra-rater reliability for total RQS was moderate for the less experienced rater (ICC 0.522, p = 0.009), whereas experienced raters showed excellent intra-rater reliability (ICC 0.91-0.99, p < 0.001) between the first and second read. Intra-rater reliability on RQS items' score reproducibility was higher and most of the items had moderate to good intra-rater reliability (k - 0.40 to 1).

conclusionsReproducibility of the total RQS and the score of individual RQS items is low. There is a need for a robust and reproducible assessment method to assess the quality of radiomics research. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: There is a need for reproducible scoring systems to improve quality of radiomics research and consecutively close the translational gap between research and clinical implementation. KEY POINTS: • Radiomics quality score has been widely used for the evaluation of radiomics studies. • Although the intra-rater reliability was moderate to excellent, intra- and inter-rater reliability of total score and point-by-point scores were low with radiomics quality score. • A robust, easy-to-use scoring system is needed for the evaluation of radiomics research.

Indexed as

RadiomicsReadingHumansObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceInter-observer variabilityIntra-observer variabilityRadiomicsReproducibility of results

Identifiers

PMID37733025
PMCPMC10957586

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.