SynthesisEuropean radiology2025
Evaluating the impact of the Radiomics Quality Score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2025. 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 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Radiomics for differentiating ruptured intracranial aneurysms: overview, methodological quality evaluation using METRICS and RQS, and feature transportability validation using independent multi-center dataset.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Ultrasound Radiomics for Differential Diagnosis of Renal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Technology in cancer research & treatmentPooled it
- Why Radiomics Rarely Reaches the Clinic: Reproducibility, Validation, and Evidence Gap-A Critical Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and validation of an Automated computed tomography segmentation model for thyroid nodules using a channel attention high-resolution network.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Methodological quality of cardiac CT and MRI radiomics studies assessed using METRICS and RQS by human readers and ChatGPT 5.1 Thinking.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Application of SHAP visualization and nomogram based on PET/CT radiomics combined models for risk stratification in high-grade invasive lung adenocarcinoma.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Radiomics for Detection and Differentiation of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2026Review
- A practical 10-step recipe for conducting radiomic studies.European radiology experimental · 2026Review
- From promise to practice: a scoping review of AI applications in abdominal radiology.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Review
- Radiomics Quality Score 2.0: towards radiomics readiness levels and clinical translation for personalized medicine.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): an umbrella review with a comprehensive two-level analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Radiomics-based machine-learning method to predict extrahepatic metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy: a multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for METRICS (METRICS-E3): an initiative from the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Role of Radiomics to Predict Malignant Transformation of Sinonasal Inverted Papilloma: A Systematic Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Robust radiomics: a review of guidelines for radiomics in medical imaging.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Time-Intensity Curve parametric imaging as a novel quantitative biomarker: enhancing diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability in prostate cancer ultrasound.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesConduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the application of the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS). MATERIALS AND
methodsA search was conducted from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews which implemented the RQS. Identification of articles prior to 2022 was via a previously published review. Quality scores of individual radiomics papers, their associated criteria scores, and these scores from all readers were extracted. Errors in the application of RQS criteria were noted and corrected. The RQS of radiomics papers were matched with the publication date, imaging modality, and country, where available.
resultsA total of 130 systematic reviews were included, and individual quality scores 117/130 (90.0%), criteria scores 98/130 (75.4%), and multiple reader data 24/130 (18.5%) were extracted. 3258 quality scores were correlated with the radiomics study date of publication. Criteria scoring errors were discovered in 39/98 (39.8%) of articles. Overall mean RQS was 9.4 ± 6.4 (95% CI, 9.1-9.6) (26.1% ± 17.8% (25.3%-26.7%)). Quality scores were positively correlated with publication year (Pearson R = 0.32, p < 0.01) and significantly higher after publication of the RQS (year < 2018, 5.6 ± 6.1 (5.1-6.1); year ≥ 2018, 10.1 ± 6.1 (9.9-10.4); p < 0.01). Only 233/3258 (7.2%) scores were ≥ 50% of the maximum RQS. Quality scores were significantly different across imaging modalities (p < 0.01). Ten criteria were positively correlated with publication year, and one was negatively correlated.
conclusionRadiomics study adherence to the RQS is increasing with time, although a vast majority of studies are developmental and rarely provide a high level of evidence to justify the clinical translation of proposed models. KEY POINTS: Question What level of adherence to the Radiomics Quality Score have radiomics studies achieved to date, has it increased with time, and is it sufficient? Findings A meta-analysis of 3258 quality scores extracted from 130 review articles resulted in a mean score of 9.4 ± 6.4. Quality scores were positively correlated with time. Clinical relevance Although quality scores of radiomics studies have increased with time, many studies have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for clinical translation. As new appraisal tools emerge, the current role of the Radiomics Quality Score may change.
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.