ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Effect of magnetic field strength and segmentation variability on the reproducibility and repeatability of radiomic texture features in cardiovascular magnetic resonance parametric mapping.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our study aims to assess the robustness of myocardial radiomic texture features (RTF) to segmentation variability and variations across scanners with different field strengths, addressing concerns about reliability in clinical practices. We conducted a retrospective analysis on 45 pairs of CMR T1 maps from 15 healthy volunteers using 1.5 T and 3 T Siemens scanners. Manual left ventricular myocardium segmentation and a deep learning-based model with Monte Carlo Dropout generated masks with different levels of variability and 1023 RTFs extracted from each region of interest (ROI). Reproducibility: the extent to which RTFs extracted from 1.5 T and 3 T images are consistent, and repeatability: the extent to which RTFs extracted from multiple segmentation runs at the same field strength agree with each other, were measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). We categorized ICC values as excellent, good, moderate, and poor. We reported the proportion of RTFs that fell in each category. The proportion of RTFs with excellent repeatability decreased as the proportion of ROI pixels in congruence across segmentation runs decreased. Up to 31% of RTFs showed excellent repeatability, while 35% showed good repeatability across segmentation runs from the manually generated masks. Across scanners (i.e., 1.5 T vs 3 T), only 7% exhibited good reproducibility. While our results demonstrate RTF sensitivity to differences in field strength and segmentation variability, we identified certain preprocessing filters and feature classes that are less sensitive to these variations and, as such, may be good candidates for imaging biomarkers or building machine-learning models.
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.