ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2025
Rethinking feature reproducibility in radiomics: the elephant in the dark.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early toxicity prediction using longitudinal cone-beam CT delta-radiomics in HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Keeping AI in medicine and radiology within the framework of scientific method: measuring to close the epistemic gap.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In radiomics, features are often linked to biomarkers and are generally expected to be reproducible, as reproducibility is considered a prerequisite for developing predictive models in clinical applications. However, this perspective overlooks feature interactions and may underestimate the potential value of nonreproducible features. Through experiments simulating a test-retest scenario, we demonstrate that even non-reproducible features can contribute significantly to predictive performance. Removing these features can lower model accuracy. These findings suggest that the emphasis on feature reproducibility should be reconsidered and that features should not be evaluated in isolation. Underlying information can be spread across multiple features. Focusing on individual features ignores feature interactions and may limit the model's predictive power. Ultimately, radiomics must prioritize prediction and clinical relevance. KEY POINTS: Feature reproducibility assessments often ignore feature interactions, overlooking predictive performance. Feature reproducibility depends on subjective thresholds, chosen metrics, and sample size. Nonreproducible features can be more predictive than reproducible ones. Predictive information may be distributed across multiple features rather than confined to individual ones.
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.