ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Radiomics based on
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence for Risk Stratification in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review of Classification Models and Predictive Performances.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Association analysis of intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity assessed by the hottest lesion based onQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Personalized prediction model for scar response after radionuclide therapy: development and validation in a Chinese cohort.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiomics features extracted from baseline Methods: A total of 522 and 382 patients pathologically diagnosed with DLBCL were enrolled for complete regression and 2-year event-free survival prediction, respectively. Three lesion selection methods (largest or hottest lesion, patient level) and five segmentation methods (manual and four semiautomatic segmentations) were applied. A total of 112 radiomics features were extracted from the lesions and at the patient level. The feature selection was performed via random forest, and models were constructed via eXtreme Gradient Boosting. The performance of all the models was evaluated via the area under the curve (AUC), which was compared via the Delong test. Results: The AUC values varied from 0.583 to 0.768 for the treatment response and prognosis prediction models on the basis of different lesion selection and segmentation methods. However, the prediction performance gap was not significant for each model (all P>0.05). The combined models (AUC =0.908 and 0.837 for treatment response and prognosis prediction, respectively) that incorporated radiomics and clinical features exhibited significant predictive superiority over the clinical models (AUC =0.622 and 0.636, respectively) and the international prognostic index model (AUC =0.623 for prognosis prediction) (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Although there are differences in the selected radiomics features among lesion selection and segmentation methods, there is no substantial difference in the predictive power of each radiomics model. In addition, radiomics features have potential added value to clinical features.
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.