ArticleArXiv2025
Evaluation of radiomic feature harmonization techniques for benign and malignant pulmonary nodules.
Article in ArXiv, 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Conventional methods for detecting lung cancer early are often qualitative and subject to interpretation. Radiomics provides quantitative characteristics of pulmonary nodules (PNs) in medical images, but variability in medical image acquisition is an obstacle to consistent clinical application of these quantitative features. Correcting radiomic features' dependency on acquisition parameters is problematic when combining data from benign and malignant PNs, as is necessary when the goal is to diagnose lung cancer, because acquisition effects may differ between them due to their biological differences. Purpose: We evaluated whether we must account for biological differences between benign and malignant PNs when correcting the dependency of radiomic features on acquisition parameters, and we compared methods of doing this using ComBat harmonization. Methods: This study used a dataset of 567 clinical chest CT scans containing both malignant and benign PNs. Scans were grouped as benign, malignant, or lung cancer screening (mixed benign and malignant). Preprocessing and feature extraction from ROIs were performed using PyRadiomics. Optimized Permutation Nested ComBat harmonization was performed on extracted features to account for variability in four imaging protocols: contrast enhancement, scanner manufacturer, acquisition voltage, focal spot size. Three methods were compared: harmonizing all data collectively in the standard manner, harmonizing all data with a covariate to preserve distinctions between subgroups, and harmonizing subgroups separately. A significant ( Results: Kruskal-Wallis defined an average 2.1% of features (95% CI: 1.9-2.4%) as acquisition-independent when data were harmonized collectively, 27.3% of features (95% CI: 25.7-28.9%) as acquisition-independent when harmonized with a covariate, and 90.9% of features (95% CI: 90.4-91.5%) as acquisition-independent when harmonized separately. LASSO-SVM models trained on data harmonized separately or with a covariate had higher ROC-AUC for lung cancer screening scans than models trained on data harmonized without distinction between benign and malignant tissues (Delong test, Holm-Bonferroni adjusted Conclusions: Radiomic features of benign and malignant PNs require different corrective transformations to recover acquisition-independent distributions. This can be done using separate harmonization or harmonization with a covariate. Separate harmonization enabled the greatest number of predictive features to be used in a machine learning model to retrospectively detect lung cancer. Features harmonized separately and features harmonized with a covariate enabled predictive models to achieve similar performance on lung cancer screening scans.
Identifiers
39876938PMC11774441What 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.