ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparison of intensity normalization methods in prostate, brain, and breast cancer multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Value of T2-weighted signal intensity index in reducing unnecessary biopsies for peripheral zone lesions PI-RADS (v2.1) ≥ 3.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Radiomics and Deep Learning: Bridging Breast Cancer Imaging Phenotypes and Genomic Heterogeneity.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2026Review
- A review on spectral data preprocessing techniques for machine learning and quantitative analysis.iScience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Intensity variation in multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) is a confounding factor in MRI analyses. Previous studies have employed several normalization methods, but there is a lack of consensus on which method results in the most comparable images across vendors and acquisitions. This study used MP-MRI collected from patients with confirmed prostate, brain, or breast cancer to examine common intensity normalization methods to identify which best harmonizes intensity values across cofounds. Materials and methods: Multiple normalization methods were deployed for intensity comparison between three unique sites, MR vendors, and magnetic field strength. Additionally, we calculated radiomic features before and after intensity normalization to determine how downstream analyses may be affected. Specifically, in the prostate cancer cohort, we tested these methods on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and additionally looked at a subset of patients who were scanned with and without the use of an endorectal coil (ERC). In a cohort of glioblastoma (GBM) patients, we tested these methods in T1 pre- and post-contrast enhancement (T1, T1C), fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Finally, in the breast cancer cohort, we tested methods on T1-weighted nonfat-suppressed images. All methods were compared using a two one-sided test (TOST) to test for equivalence of mean and standard deviation of intensity distributions. Results: While each organ had unique results, across every tested comparison, using the Z-score of intensity within a mask of the organ consistently provided an equivalent distribution (all p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results suggest that intensity normalization using the Z-score of intensity within prostate, breast, and brain MR images produces the most comparable intensities between sites, MR vendors, magnetic field strength, and prostate endorectal coil usage. Likewise, Z-score normalization provided the highest percentage of radiomic features that were statistically equal across the three organs.
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.