Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40478348›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Post-processing steps improve generalisability and robustness of an MRI-based radiogenomic model for human papillomavirus status prediction in oropharyngeal cancer.

Milad Ahmadian, Zuhir Bodalal, Paula Bos, Roland M Martens, Georgios Agrotis, Hedda J van der Hulst, Conchita Vens, Luc Karssemakers, Abrahim Al-Mamgani, Pim de Graaf and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Milad AhmadianDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Zuhir BodalalDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Paula BosDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Roland M MartensDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Georgios AgrotisDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hedda J van der HulstDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Conchita VensDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Luc KarssemakersDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abrahim Al-MamganiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim de GraafDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bas JasperseDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ruud H BrakenhoffDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C René LeemansDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Regina G H Beets-TanDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jonas A CastelijnsDepartment of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel W M van den BrekelDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.w.m.vandenbrekel@uva.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6338-6743

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the impact of image post-processing steps on the generalisability of MRI-based radiogenomic models. Using a human papillomavirus (HPV) status in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) prediction model, this study examines the potential of different post-processing strategies to increase its generalisability across data from different centres and image acquisition protocols. MATERIALS AND

methodsContrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR images of OPSCC patients of two cohorts from different centres, with confirmed HPV status, were manually segmented. After radiomic feature extraction, the HPV prediction model trained on a training set with 91 patients was subsequently tested on two independent cohorts: a test set with 62 patients and an externally derived cohort of 157 patients. The data processing options included: data harmonisation, a process to ensure consistency in data from different centres; exclusion of unstable features across different segmentations and scan protocols; and removal of highly correlated features to reduce redundancy.

resultsThe predictive model, trained without post-processing, showed high performance on the test set, with an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.90, p < 0.001). However, when tested on the external data, the model performed less well, resulting in an AUC of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.45-0.58, p = 0.334). The model's generalisability substantially improved after performing post-processing steps. The AUC for the test set reached 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63-0.87, p < 0.001), while for the external cohort, the predictive model achieved an AUC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64-0.81, p < 0.001).

conclusionsWhen applied before model development, post-processing steps can enhance the robustness and generalisability of predictive radiogenomics models. KEY POINTS: Question How do post-processing steps impact the generalisability of MRI-based radiogenomic prediction models? Findings Applying post-processing steps, i.e., data harmonisation, identification of stable radiomic features, and removal of correlated features, before model development can improve model robustness and generalisability. Clinical relevance Post-processing steps in MRI radiogenomic model generation lead to reliable non-invasive diagnostic tools for personalised cancer treatment strategies.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingOropharyngeal NeoplasmsPapillomavirus InfectionsSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckAgedFemaleHuman Papillomavirus VirusesHumansMaleMiddle AgedHuman papillomavirusImaging genomicsMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID40478348
PMCPMC12634727

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.