Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39594139›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Decoding Radiomics: A Step-by-Step Guide to Machine Learning Workflow in Hand-Crafted and Deep Learning Radiomics Studies.

Maurizio Cè, Marius Dumitru Chiriac, Andrea Cozzi, Laura Macrì, Francesca Lucrezia Rabaiotti, Giovanni Irmici, Deborah Fazzini, Gianpaolo Carrafiello, Michaela Cellina

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maurizio CèPostgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Marius Dumitru ChiriacPolitecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0009-0005-7167-3055
Andrea CozziImaging Institute of Southern Switzerland (IIMSI), Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (EOC), Via Tesserete 46, 6900 Lugano, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-4922-7065
Laura MacrìPostgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Francesca Lucrezia RabaiottiPostgraduation School in Radiodiagnostics, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Giovanni IrmiciBreast Imaging Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Deborah FazziniRadiology Department, Centro Diagnostico Italiano, Via Saint Bon 20, 20147 Milan, Italy.
Gianpaolo CarrafielloRadiology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via Francesco Sforza 35, 20122 Milan, Italy.
Michaela CellinaRadiology Department, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Piazza Principessa Clotilde 3, 20121 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7401-1971

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although radiomics research has experienced rapid growth in recent years, with numerous studies dedicated to the automated extraction of diagnostic and prognostic information from various imaging modalities, such as CT, PET, and MRI, only a small fraction of these findings has successfully transitioned into clinical practice. This gap is primarily due to the significant methodological challenges involved in radiomics research, which emphasize the need for a rigorous evaluation of study quality. While many technical aspects may lie outside the expertise of most radiologists, having a foundational knowledge is essential for evaluating the quality of radiomics workflows and contributing, together with data scientists, to the development of models with a real-world clinical impact. This review is designed for the new generation of radiologists, who may not have specialized training in machine learning or radiomics, but will inevitably play a role in this evolving field. The paper has two primary objectives: first, to provide a clear, systematic guide to radiomics study pipeline, including study design, image preprocessing, feature selection, model training and validation, and performance evaluation. Furthermore, given the critical importance of evaluating the robustness of radiomics studies, this review offers a step-by-step guide to the application of the METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS, 2024)-a newly proposed tool for assessing the quality of radiomics studies. This roadmap aims to support researchers and reviewers alike, regardless of their machine learning expertise, in utilizing this tool for effective study evaluation.

Indexed as

AIdeep learningmachine learningMETRICSradiomicsradiomics pipeline

Identifiers

PMID39594139
PMCPMC11593328

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.