Trial reportEuropean radiology2024
Reproducibility of radiomics quality score: an intra- and inter-rater reliability study.
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.
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
36 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Image Quality Standardization in Radiomics: A Systematic Review of Artifacts, Variability, and Feature Stability.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Deep learning models for pancreatic cancer detection on CT: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- CT-based radiomics in predicting the efficacy of preoperative neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Radiomics for differentiating radiation-induced brain injury from recurrence in gliomas: systematic review, meta-analysis, and methodological quality evaluation using METRICS and RQS.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- The Machine Learning Models in Major Cardiovascular Adverse Events Prediction Based on Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the impact of the Radiomics Quality Score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Application of radiomics-based prediction model to predict preoperative lymph node metastasis in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2024Pooled it
- The accuracy of radiomics in diagnosing tumor deposits and perineural invasion in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Current status and quality of radiomics studies for predicting outcome in acute ischemic stroke patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Pooled it
- Quantitative MRI for renal cell carcinoma grading: from feasibility towards reproducibility.European radiology · 2026Article
- Methodological quality of cardiac CT and MRI radiomics studies assessed using METRICS and RQS by human readers and ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Radiomics: Current Applications and Future Directions.MedComm · 2026Review
- Assessing consistency of the emergency medical services benefit score: an intra- and inter-rater reliability study in a belgian helicopter medical center.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- From promise to practice: a scoping review of AI applications in abdominal radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Could a multimodal fusion model integrating CT radiomics and systemic inflammatory markers improve preoperative risk stratification of parotid masses? A retrospective exploratory study.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- A Reproducible MRI-Based Quantitative Feature for Differentiating Dysplastic Nodules from Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Article
- Reproducible meningioma grading across multi-center MRI protocols via hybrid radiomic and deep learning features.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- Adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): an umbrella review with a comprehensive two-level analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Two independent studies, one goal, one conclusion: radiomics research quality under the microscope.European radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.