SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Evaluating the quality of radiomics-based studies for endometrial cancer using RQS and METRICS tools.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Radiomics for differentiating ruptured intracranial aneurysms: overview, methodological quality evaluation using METRICS and RQS, and feature transportability validation using independent multi-center dataset.European radiology · 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
- Performance of Machine Learning in Diagnosing KRAS (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma) Mutations in Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Research trends and emerging themes of magnetic resonance imaging in endometrial cancer: a bibliometric analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Updated ESUR Guidelines for Endometrial Cancer: integrating MRI with the 2023 FIGO Staging Revolution.European radiology · 2026Review
- Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for METRICS (METRICS-E3): an initiative from the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Reproducibility of methodological radiomics score (METRICS): an intra- and inter-rater reliability study endorsed by EuSoMII.European radiology · 2025Article
- Quality appraisal of radiomics-based studies on chondrosarcoma using METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS).Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- DWI-based Biologically Interpretable Radiomic Nomogram for Predicting 1-year Biochemical Recurrence after Radical Prostatectomy: A Deep Learning, Multicenter Study.Current medical imaging · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the methodological quality of radiomics-based models in endometrial cancer using the radiomics quality score (RQS) and METhodological radiomICs score (METRICS).
methodsWe systematically reviewed studies published by October 30th, 2023. Inclusion criteria were original radiomics studies on endometrial cancer using CT, MRI, PET, or ultrasound. Articles underwent a quality assessment by novice and expert radiologists using RQS and METRICS. The inter-rater reliability for RQS and METRICS among radiologists with varying expertise was determined. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess whether scores varied according to study topic, imaging technique, publication year, and journal quartile.
resultsSixty-eight studies were analysed, with a median RQS of 11 (IQR, 9-14) and METRICS score of 67.6% (IQR, 58.8-76.0); two different articles reached maximum RQS of 19 and METRICS of 90.7%, respectively. Most studies utilised MRI (82.3%) and machine learning methods (88.2%). Characterisation and recurrence risk stratification were the most explored outcomes, featured in 35.3% and 19.1% of articles, respectively. High inter-rater reliability was observed for both RQS (ICC: 0.897; 95% CI: 0.821, 0.946) and METRICS (ICC: 0.959; 95% CI: 0.928, 0.979). Methodological limitations such as lack of external validation suggest areas for improvement. At subgroup analyses, no statistically significant difference was noted.
conclusionsWhilst using RQS, the quality of endometrial cancer radiomics research was apparently unsatisfactory, METRICS depicts a good overall quality. Our study highlights the need for strict compliance with quality metrics. Adhering to these quality measures can increase the consistency of radiomics towards clinical application in the pre-operative management of endometrial cancer. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Both the RQS and METRICS can function as instrumental tools for identifying different methodological deficiencies in endometrial cancer radiomics research. However, METRICS also reflected a focus on the practical applicability and clarity of documentation. KEY POINTS: The topic of radiomics currently lacks standardisation, limiting clinical implementation. METRICS scores were generally higher than the RQS, reflecting differences in the development process and methodological content. A positive trend in METRICS score may suggest growing attention to methodological aspects in 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.