ArticleProceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering2020
Robust Radiomic Feature Selection in Digital Mammography: Understanding the Effect of Imaging Acquisition Physics Using Phantom and Clinical Data Analysis.
Article in Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid metaheuristic feature selection for breast cancer detection in digital mammography: a radiomics and deep learning pilot feasibility study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Radiomics and Deep Learning: Bridging Breast Cancer Imaging Phenotypes and Genomic Heterogeneity.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- Article
- A Statistical Approach to Assess the Robustness of Radiomics Features in the Discrimination of Mammographic Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies have shown that combining calculations of radiomic features with estimates of mammographic density results in an even better assessment of breast cancer risk than density alone. However, to ensure that risk assessment calculations are consistent across different imaging acquisition settings, it is important to identify features that are not overly sensitive to changes in these settings. In this study, digital mammography (DM) images of an anthropomorphic phantom ("Rachel", Gammex 169, Madison, WI) were acquired at various technique settings. We varied kV and mAs, which control contrast and noise, respectively. DM images in women with negative screening exams were also analyzed. Radiomic features were calculated in the raw ("FOR PROCESSING") DM images; i.e., grey-level histogram, co-occurrence, run length, fractal dimension, Gabor Wavelet, local binary pattern, Laws, and co-occurrence Laws features. For each feature, the range of variation across technique settings in phantom images was calculated. This range was scaled against the range of variation in the clinical distribution (specifically, the range corresponding to the middle 90% of the distribution). In order for a radiomic feature to be considered robust, this metric of imaging acquisition variation (IAV) should be as small as possible (approaching zero). An IAV threshold of 0.25 was proposed for the purpose of this study. Out of 341 features, 284 features (83%) met the threshold IAV ≤ 0.25. In conclusion, we have developed a method to identify robust radiomic features in DM.
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.