Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39495422›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2024

Optimizing radiomics for prostate cancer diagnosis: feature selection strategies, machine learning classifiers, and MRI sequences.

Eugenia Mylona, Dimitrios I Zaridis, Charalampos Ν Kalantzopoulos, Nikolaos S Tachos, Daniele Regge, Nikolaos Papanikolaou, Manolis Tsiknakis, Kostas Marias, ProCAncer-I Consortium, Dimitrios I Fotiadis

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 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Multiomic random forest toxicity modeling of radiation esophagitis.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

Eugenia MylonaBiomedical Research Institute, FORTH, GR 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Dimitrios I ZaridisBiomedical Research Institute, FORTH, GR 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Charalampos Ν KalantzopoulosBiomedical Research Institute, FORTH, GR 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Nikolaos S TachosBiomedical Research Institute, FORTH, GR 45110, Ioannina, Greece.
Daniele ReggeDepartment of Radiology, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Italy.
Nikolaos PapanikolaouComputational Clinical Imaging Group, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisboa, Portugal.
Manolis TsiknakisComputational Biomedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, GR 70013, Heraklion, Greece.
Kostas MariasComputational Biomedicine Laboratory, Institute of Computer Science, FORTH, GR 70013, Heraklion, Greece.
ProCAncer-I Consortium
Dimitrios I FotiadisBiomedical Research Institute, FORTH, GR 45110, Ioannina, Greece. fotiadis@uoi.gr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-5082

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 952159
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRadiomics-based analyses encompass multiple steps, leading to ambiguity regarding the optimal approaches for enhancing model performance. This study compares the effect of several feature selection methods, machine learning (ML) classifiers, and sources of radiomic features, on models' performance for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from bi-parametric MRI.

methodsTwo multi-centric datasets, with 465 and 204 patients each, were used to extract 1246 radiomic features per patient and MRI sequence. Ten feature selection methods, such as Boruta, mRMRe, ReliefF, recursive feature elimination (RFE), random forest (RF) variable importance, L1-lasso, etc., four ML classifiers, namely SVM, RF, LASSO, and boosted generalized linear model (GLM), and three sets of radiomics features, derived from T2w images, ADC maps, and their combination, were used to develop predictive models of csPCa. Their performance was evaluated in a nested cross-validation and externally, using seven performance metrics.

resultsIn total, 480 models were developed. In nested cross-validation, the best model combined Boruta with Boosted GLM (AUC = 0.71, F1 = 0.76). In external validation, the best model combined L1-lasso with boosted GLM (AUC = 0.71, F1 = 0.47). Overall, Boruta, RFE, L1-lasso, and RF variable importance were the top-performing feature selection methods, while the choice of ML classifier didn't significantly affect the results. The ADC-derived features showed the highest discriminatory power with T2w-derived features being less informative, while their combination did not lead to improved performance.

conclusionThe choice of feature selection method and the source of radiomic features have a profound effect on the models' performance for csPCa diagnosis. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This work may guide future radiomic research, paving the way for the development of more effective and reliable radiomic models; not only for advancing prostate cancer diagnostic strategies, but also for informing broader applications of radiomics in different medical contexts. KEY POINTS: Radiomics is a growing field that can still be optimized. Feature selection method impacts radiomics models' performance more than ML algorithms. Best feature selection methods: RFE, LASSO, RF, and Boruta. ADC-derived radiomic features yield more robust models compared to T2w-derived radiomic features.

Indexed as

Machine learningMRIProstate cancerRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID39495422
PMCPMC11535140

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.