Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38660370›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of radiology open2024

Reproducing RECIST lesion selection via machine learning: Insights into intra and inter-radiologist variation.

Teresa M Tareco Bucho, Liliana Petrychenko, Mohamed A Abdelatty, Nino Bogveradze, Zuhir Bodalal, Regina G H Beets-Tan, Stefano Trebeschi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of radiology open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Teresa M Tareco BuchoDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Liliana PetrychenkoDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Mohamed A AbdelattyDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nino BogveradzeDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Zuhir BodalalDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-TanDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stefano TrebeschiDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLMaastricht University · NLOncode Institute · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) aims to provide a standardized approach to assess treatment response in solid tumors. However, discrepancies in the selection of measurable and target lesions among radiologists using these criteria pose a significant limitation to their reproducibility and accuracy. This study aimed to understand the factors contributing to this variability. Methods: Machine learning models were used to replicate, in parallel, the selection process of measurable and target lesions by two radiologists in a cohort of 40 patients from an internal pan-cancer dataset. The models were trained on lesion characteristics such as size, shape, texture, rank, and proximity to other lesions. Ablation experiments were conducted to evaluate the impact of lesion diameter, volume, and rank on the selection process. Results: The models successfully reproduced the selection of measurable lesions, relying primarily on size-related features. Similarly, the models reproduced target lesion selection, relying mostly on lesion rank. Beyond these features, the importance placed by different radiologists on different visual characteristics can vary, specifically when choosing target lesions. Worth noting that substantial variability was still observed between radiologists in both measurable and target lesion selection. Conclusions: Despite the successful replication of lesion selection, our results still revealed significant inter-radiologist disagreement. This underscores the necessity for more precise guidelines to standardize lesion selection processes and minimize reliance on individual interpretation and experience as a means to bridge existing ambiguities.

Indexed as

Cancer imagingMachine learningRECISTReproducibilityVariability

Identifiers

PMID38660370
PMCPMC11039940
OpenAlexW4394904953

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.