ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Repeatability of radiomic features in myocardial T1 and T2 mapping.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-invasive imaging in heart transplant recipients: state of art and future direction.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Review
- Diagnostic performance comparison of two ultrasound classification systems for hepatic alveolar echinococcosis: a single-center retrospective study.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the test-retest repeatability of radiomic features in myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping.
methodsIn this prospective study, 50 healthy volunteers (29 women and 21 men, mean age 39.4 ± 13.7 years) underwent two identical cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations at 1.5 T. The protocol included native T1 and T2 mapping in both short-axis and long-axis orientation. For T1 mapping, we investigated standard (1.9 × 1.9 mm) and high (1.4 × 1.4 mm) spatial resolution. After manual segmentation of the left ventricular myocardium, 100 radiomic features from seven feature classes were extracted and analyzed. Test-retest repeatability of radiomic features was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and classified as poor (ICC < 0.50), moderate (0.50-0.75), good (0.75-0.90), and excellent (> 0.90).
resultsFor T1 maps acquired in short-axis orientation at standard resolution, repeatability was excellent for 6 features, good for 29 features, moderate for 19 features, and poor for 46 features. We identified 15 features from 6 classes which showed good to excellent reproducibility for T1 mapping in all resolutions and all orientations. For short-axis T2 maps, repeatability was excellent for 6 features, good for 25 features, moderate for 23 features, and poor for 46 features. 12 features from 5 classes were found to have good to excellent repeatability in T2 mapping independent of slice orientation.
conclusionWe have identified a subset of features with good to excellent repeatability independent of slice orientation and spatial resolution. We recommend using these features for further radiomics research in myocardial T1 and T2 mapping. KEY POINTS: Question The study addresses the need for reliable radiomic features for quantitative analysis of the myocardium to ensure diagnostic consistency in cardiac MRI. Findings We have identified a subset of radiomic features demonstrating good to excellent repeatability in native T1 and T2 mapping independent of slice orientation and resolution. Clinical relevanceRadiomic features have been proposed as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in various heart diseases. By identifying a subset of particularly reproducible radiomic features our study serves to inform the selection of radiomic features in future research and clinical applications.
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.