ArticleScientific reports2024
A reference framework for standardization and harmonization of CT radiomics features on cadaveric sample.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging radiomics and histopathology: cross-modality consistency of radiomic features from CT to micro-CT in NSCLC.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- CT data harmonization via learned virtual monoenergetic imaging for cross-kV scan translation and radiomics reproducibility.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Deep learning-based automatic segmentation and CT elastography radiomics for preoperative prediction of right recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- An External Validation Study on Two Pre-Trained Large Language Models for Multimodal Prognostication in Laryngeal and Hypopharyngeal Cancer: Integrating Clinical, Treatment, and Radiomic Data to Predict Survival Outcomes with Interpretable Reasoning.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effects of nonstationary system blur on radiomic texture features of trabecular bone in normal and ultra-high resolution CT.Medical physics · 2025Article
- CT Cadaveric dataset for Radiomics features stability assessment in lumbar vertebrae.Scientific data · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiomics features (RFs) serve as quantitative metrics to characterize shape, density/intensity, and texture patterns in radiological images. Despite their promise, RFs exhibit reproducibility challenges across acquisition settings, thus limiting implementation into clinical practice. In this investigation, we evaluate the effects of different CT scanners and CT acquisition protocols (KV, mA, field-of-view, and reconstruction kernel settings) on RFs extracted from lumbar vertebrae of a cadaveric trunk. Employing univariate and multivariate Generalized Linear Models (GLM), we evaluated the impact of each acquisition parameter on RFs. Our findings indicate that variations in mA had negligible effects on RFs, while alterations in kV resulted in exponential changes in several RFs, notably First Order (94.4%), GLCM (87.5%), and NGTDM (100%). Moreover, we demonstrated that a tailored GLM model was superior to the ComBat algorithm in harmonizing CT images. GLM achieved R2 > 0.90 in 21 RFs (19.6%), contrasting ComBat's mean R2 above 0.90 in only 1 RF (0.9%). This pioneering study unveils the effects of CT acquisition parameters on bone RFs in cadaveric specimens, highlighting significant variations across parameters and scanner datasets. The proposed GLM model presents a robust solution for mitigating these differences, potentially advancing harmonization efforts in Radiomics-based studies across diverse CT protocols and vendors.
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.