ArticleScientific reports2024
Impact of MRI radiomic feature normalization for prognostic modelling in uterine endometrial and cervical cancers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application value of multiphase contrast-enhanced computed tomography radiomics in preoperative evaluation of peritoneal metastasis in gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Quantitative assessment of fetal lung development using MRI-based radiomics: a comparative analysis of 3D and 2D approaches with external validation.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Predicting aggressive disease and poor outcome in endometrial cancer using preoperative [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- CT radiomics-based explainable machine learning model for accurate differentiation of malignant and benign endometrial tumors: a two-center study.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Evaluation of normalized T1 signal intensity obtained using an automated segmentation model in lower leg MRI as a potential imaging biomarker in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1 A.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A machine learning framework for predicting shear strength properties of rock materials.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advancing 1.5T MR imaging: toward achieving 3T quality through deep learning super-resolution techniques.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- WOAENet: a whale optimization-guided ensemble deep learning with soft voting for uterine cancer diagnosis based on MRI images.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Widespread clinical use of MRI radiomic tumor profiling for prognostication and treatment planning in cancers faces major obstacles due to limitations in standardization of radiomic features. The purpose of the current work was to assess the impact of different MRI scanning- and normalization protocols for the statistical analyses of tumor radiomic data in two patient cohorts with uterine endometrial-(EC) (n = 136) and cervical (CC) (n = 132) cancer. 1.5 T and 3 T, T1-weighted MRI 2 min post-contrast injection, T2-weighted turbo spin echo imaging, and diffusion-weighted imaging were acquired. Radiomic features were extracted from within manually segmented tumors in 3D and normalized either using z-score normalization or a linear regression model (LRM) accounting for linear dependencies with MRI acquisition parameters. Patients were clustered into two groups based on radiomic profile. Impact of MRI scanning parameters on cluster composition and prognostication were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests, Kaplan-Meier plots, log-rank test, random survival forests and LASSO Cox regression with time-dependent area under curve (tdAUC) (α = 0.05). A large proportion of the radiomic features was statistically associated with MRI scanning protocol in both cohorts (EC: 162/385 [42%]; CC: 180/292 [62%]). A substantial number of EC (49/136 [36%]) and CC (50/132 [38%]) patients changed cluster when clustering was performed after z-score-versus LRM normalization. Prognostic modeling based on cluster groups yielded similar outputs for the two normalization methods in the EC/CC cohorts (log-rank test; z-score: p = 0.02/0.33; LRM: p = 0.01/0.45). Mean tdAUC for prognostic modeling of disease-specific survival (DSS) by the radiomic features in EC/CC was similar for the two normalization methods (random survival forests; z-score: mean tdAUC = 0.77/0.78; LRM: mean tdAUC = 0.80/0.75; LASSO Cox; z-score: mean tdAUC = 0.64/0.76; LRM: mean tdAUC = 0.76/0.75). Severe biases in tumor radiomics data due to MRI scanning parameters exist. Z-score normalization does not eliminate these biases, whereas LRM normalization effectively does. Still, radiomic cluster groups after z-score- and LRM normalization were similarly associated with DSS in EC and CC patients.
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.