ArticleEJNMMI reports2025
Practical use of radiomic features as a metric for image quality discrimination in [
Article in EJNMMI reports, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRadiomics features have been utilised as group metrics of image quality in many areas of diagnostic radiology. In this pilot study, the relationship between technical metrics used in image quality assurance and visual grading scores provided by a radiologist were evaluated. Image dataset harmonisation allowed comparison between the two and allowed trends to be extracted. We propose a reproducible technique to identify the metrics.
methodsA retrospective chart review of 30 [
resultsOf the 120 reprocessed image datasets, 115 were included in the study. We focused on overall image quality score rather than individual radiomic metrics as this identified the most robust trend. A significant difference in the 30 s image dataset with respect to each group individually and combined for the radiologist overall score was observed.
conclusionOur results show that a large percentage change in certain features can indicate a significant change in quality in clinically processed images.
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.