Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39453470›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2025

ESR Essentials: radiomics-practice recommendations by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics.

João Santinha, Daniel Pinto Dos Santos, Fabian Laqua, Jacob J Visser, Kevin B W Groot Lipman, Matthias Dietzel, Michail E Klontzas, Renato Cuocolo, Salvatore Gitto, Tugba Akinci D'Antonoli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

João SantinhaDigital Surgery LAB, Champalimaud Research, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal. joao.santinha@research.fchampalimaud.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8174-2943
Daniel Pinto Dos SantosDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4785-6394
Fabian LaquaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3761-0350
Jacob J VisserDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9935-2097
Kevin B W Groot LipmanDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3651-2529
Matthias DietzelDepartment of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Maximiliansplatz 3, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9248-1398
Michail E KlontzasDepartment of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2731-933X
Renato CuocoloDepartment of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-1574
Salvatore GittoDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3623-7822
Tugba Akinci D'AntonoliInstitute of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Baselland, Liestal, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7237-711X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiomics is a method to extract detailed information from diagnostic images that cannot be perceived by the naked eye. Although radiomics research carries great potential to improve clinical decision-making, its inherent methodological complexities make it difficult to comprehend every step of the analysis, often causing reproducibility and generalizability issues that hinder clinical adoption. Critical steps in the radiomics analysis and model development pipeline-such as image, application of image filters, and selection of feature extraction parameters-can greatly affect the values of radiomic features. Moreover, common errors in data partitioning, model comparison, fine-tuning, assessment, and calibration can reduce reproducibility and impede clinical translation. Clinical adoption of radiomics also requires a deep understanding of model explainability and the development of intuitive interpretations of radiomic features. To address these challenges, it is essential for radiomics model developers and clinicians to be well-versed in current best practices. Proper knowledge and application of these practices is crucial for accurate radiomics feature extraction, robust model development, and thorough assessment, ultimately increasing reproducibility, generalizability, and the likelihood of successful clinical translation. In this article, we have provided researchers with our recommendations along with practical examples to facilitate good research practices in radiomics. KEY POINTS: Radiomics' inherent methodological complexity should be understood to ensure rigorous radiomic model development to improve clinical decision-making. Adherence to radiomics-specific checklists and quality assessment tools ensures methodological rigor. Use of standardized radiomics tools and best practices enhances clinical translation of radiomics models.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingMedical InformaticsEuropeHumansRadiomicsReproducibility of ResultsSocieties, MedicalFeature extractionImage pre-processingRadiomicsRadiomics model training and assessmentReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID39453470
PMCPMC11835989

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.