Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39186173›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2024

Different radiomics annotation methods comparison in rectal cancer characterisation and prognosis prediction: a two-centre study.

Ying Zhu, Yaru Wei, Zhongwei Chen, Xiang Li, Shiwei Zhang, Caiyun Wen, Guoquan Cao, Jiejie Zhou, Meihao Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 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
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Nomogram for reducing unnecessary biopsies of breast lesions based on MRI and clinical features: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Ying ZhuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Yaru WeiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Zhongwei ChenDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Xiang LiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Shiwei ZhangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Caiyun WenDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Guoquan CaoDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Jiejie ZhouDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. zhoujiejie1984@163.com.
Meihao WangDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China. wzwmh@wmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7055-993X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the performance differences of multiple annotations in radiomics analysis and provide a reference for tumour annotation in large-scale medical image analysis.

methodsA total of 342 patients from two centres who underwent radical resection for rectal cancer were retrospectively studied and divided into training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts. Three predictive tasks of tumour T-stage (pT), lymph node metastasis (pLNM), and disease-free survival (pDFS) were performed. Twelve radiomics models were constructed using Lasso-Logistic or Lasso-Cox to evaluate and four annotation methods, 2D detailed annotation along tumour boundaries (2D), 3D detailed annotation along tumour boundaries (3D), 2D bounding box (2D

resultsFor radiomics models, the area under the curve values ranged from 0.627 (0.518-0.728) to 0.811 (0.705-0.917) in the internal validation cohort and from 0.619 (0.469-0.754) to 0.824 (0.689-0.918) in the external validation cohort. Most radiomics models based on four annotations did not differ significantly, except between the 3D and 3D

conclusionRadiomics and combined models constructed with 2D and bounding box annotations showed comparable performances to those with 3D and detailed annotations along tumour boundaries in rectal cancer characterisation and prognosis prediction. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: For quantitative analysis of radiological images, the selection of 2D maximum tumour area or bounding box annotation is as representative and easy to operate as 3D whole tumour or detailed annotations along tumour boundaries. KEY POINTS: There is currently a lack of discussion on whether different annotation efforts in radiomics are predictively representative. No significant differences were observed in radiomics and combined models regardless of the annotations (2D, 3D, detailed, or bounding box). Prioritise selecting the more time and effort-saving 2D maximum area bounding box annotation.

Indexed as

Annotation methodsMRIRadiomicsRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID39186173
PMCPMC11347551

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.