ArticleCancers2023
Small Renal Masses: Developing a Robust Radiomic Signature.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in the Detection, Characterization, and Management of Renal Masses: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- CT-Based Radiomics in the Characterization of Solid Renal Tumors: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a deep learning radiomics model for predicting capsular invasion in small renal masses: a multicenter retrospective study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Optimizing renal mass histology prediction with artificial intelligence using handcrafted radiomics.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- CT radiomics for predicting postoperative disease specific survival in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a multi-center study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Visual Perception and Pre-Attentive Attributes in Oncological Data Visualisation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A predictive model for WHO/ISUP pathologic grading of renal clear cell carcinoma based on CT radiomics: a multicenter study.BMC nephrology · 2025Article
- Scientific Status Quo of Small Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Assessment and Radiomics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Percutaneous Ablation of T1 Renal Masses: Comparative Local Control and Complications after Radiofrequency and Cryoablation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background and (2) Methods: In this retrospective, observational, monocentric study, we selected a cohort of eighty-five patients (age range 38-87 years old, 51 men), enrolled between January 2014 and December 2020, with a newly diagnosed renal mass smaller than 4 cm (SRM) that later underwent nephrectomy surgery (partial or total) or tumorectomy with an associated histopatological study of the lesion. The radiomic features (RFs) of eighty-five SRMs were extracted from abdominal CTs bought in the portal venous phase using three different CT scanners. Lesions were manually segmented by an abdominal radiologist. Image analysis was performed with the Pyradiomic library of 3D-Slicer. A total of 108 RFs were included for each volume. A machine learning model based on radiomic features was developed to distinguish between benign and malignant small renal masses. The pipeline included redundant RFs elimination, RFs standardization, dataset balancing, exclusion of non-reproducible RFs, feature selection (FS), model training, model tuning and validation of unseen data. (3) Results: The study population was composed of fifty-one RCCs and thirty-four benign lesions (twenty-five oncocytomas, seven lipid-poor angiomyolipomas and two renal leiomyomas). The final radiomic signature included 10 RFs. The average performance of the model on unseen data was 0.79 ± 0.12 for ROC-AUC, 0.73 ± 0.12 for accuracy, 0.78 ± 0.19 for sensitivity and 0.63 ± 0.15 for specificity. (4) Conclusions: Using a robust pipeline, we found that the developed RFs signature is capable of distinguishing RCCs from benign renal tumors.
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.