ArticleScientific reports2023
Comparative analysis of batch correction methods for FDG PET/CT using metabolic radiogenomic data of lung cancer patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A conserved regulatory architecture stabilizes cellular senescence across distinct triggers in human fibroblasts.GeroScience · 2026Article
- Review
- HONeYBEE: enabling scalable multimodal AI in oncology through foundation model-driven embeddings.NPJ digital medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In radiomics research, the issue of different instruments being used is significant. In this study, we compared three correction methods to reduce the batch effects in radiogenomic data from fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT images of lung cancer patients. Texture features of the FDG PET/CT images and genomic data were retrospectively obtained. The features were corrected with different methods: phantom correction, ComBat method, and Limma method. Batch effects were estimated using three analytic tools: principal component analysis (PCA), the k-nearest neighbor batch effect test (kBET), and the silhouette score. Finally, the associations of features and gene mutations were compared between each correction method. Although the kBET rejection rate and silhouette score were lower in the phantom-corrected data than in the uncorrected data, a PCA plot showed a similar variance. ComBat and Limma methods provided correction with low batch effects, and there was no significant difference in the results of the two methods. In ComBat- and Limma-corrected data, more texture features exhibited a significant association with the TP53 mutation than in those in the phantom-corrected data. This study suggests that correction with ComBat or Limma methods can be more effective or equally as effective as the phantom method in reducing batch effects.
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.