ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Towards automatical tumor segmentation in radiomics: a comparative analysis of various methods and radiologists for both region extraction and downstream diagnosis.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- MRI-based radiomics with automated segmentation and manual refinement for predicting treatment response in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Observational
- Machine Learning for Radiomics in Oncology: Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Simple and Robust MRI Radiomics Feature for Predicting Pathological Complete Response: A Proof-of-Concept Study in Breast Cancer Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Radiomics-based models to predict IDH mutation status and prognosis in gliomas using MRI: a multicenter study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Automated segmentation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in contrast-enhanced free-breathing 3D-GRE: a comparative study of UNet, nnUNet, and UMamba for tumor delineation.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Fusion of 2.5D deep transfer learning and radiomics for predicting benign and malignant Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) 3 and 4A nodules.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Combining radiomics of X-rays with patient functional rating scales for predicting satisfaction after radial fracture fixation: a multimodal machine learning predictive model.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- The application of radiomics in the diagnosis and evaluation of cognitive impairment related to neurological diseases.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveBy discussing the difference, stability and classification ability of tumor contour extracted by artificial intelligence and doctors, can a more stable method of tumor contour extraction be obtained?
methodsWe propose a novel framework for the automatic segmentation of lung tumor contours and the differential diagnosis of downstream tasks. This framework integrates four key modules: tumor segmentation, extraction of radiomic features, feature selection, and the development of diagnostic models for clinical applications. Using this framework, we conducted a study involving a cohort of 1,429 patients suspected of lung cancer. Four automatic segmentation methods (RNN, UNET, WFCM, and SNAKE) were evaluated against manual segmentation performed by three radiologists with varying levels of expertise. We further studied the consistency of radiomic features extracted from these methods and evaluates their diagnostic performance across three downstream tasks: benign vs. malignant classification, lung adenocarcinoma infiltration, and lung nodule density classification.
resultsThe Dice coefficient of RNN is the highest among the four automatic segmentation methods (0.803 > 0.751, 0.576, 0.560), and all P < 0.05. In the consistency comparison of the seven contour-extracted radiomic features, that the features extracted by RNN and S1 (the senior radiologist) showed the highest similarity which was higher than the other automatic segmentation methods and doctors with low seniority. In all three downstream tasks, the radiomic features extracted from RNN segmentation contours showed the highest diagnostic discrimination. In the classification of benign and malignant nodules, the RNN method performed slightly better than the S1 method, with an AUC of 0.840 ± 0.01 and 0.824 ± 0.015, respectively, and significantly better than the other five methods. Similarly, the RNN method had an AUC value of 0.946 in lung adenocarcinoma infiltration, and a kappa value of 0.729 in lung nodule density classification, both of which were better than the other six methods.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that AI-driven tumor segmentation methods can enhance clinical decision-making by providing reliable and reproducible results, ultimately emphasizing the auxiliary role of automated tumor contouring in clinical practice. The findings will have important implications for the application of radiomics in clinical practice.
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.