Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39014086›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2025

Evaluating the quality of radiomics-based studies for endometrial cancer using RQS and METRICS tools.

Luca Russo, Silvia Bottazzi, Burak Kocak, Konstantinos Zormpas-Petridis, Benedetta Gui, Arnaldo Stanzione, Massimo Imbriaco, Evis Sala, Renato Cuocolo, Andrea Ponsiglione

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

10 authors.

Luca RussoDipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche ed Ematologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Silvia BottazziDipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche ed Ematologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Burak KocakDepartment of Radiology, University of Health Sciences, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Basaksehir, Istanbul, Turkey.
Konstantinos Zormpas-PetridisDipartimento Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Benedetta GuiDipartimento Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Arnaldo StanzioneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Massimo ImbriacoDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Evis SalaDipartimento di Scienze Radiologiche ed Ematologiche, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy. rcuocolo@unisa.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-1574
Andrea PonsiglioneDepartment of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Endometrial NeoplasmsDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingRadiomicsReproducibility of ResultsDeep learningEndometrial neoplasmsMachine learningQuality indicatorsRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID39014086
PMCPMC11632020

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.