ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Incremental diagnostic value of tumor habitat radiomics for risk stratification in thymic epithelial tumors.
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 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.
- Heterogeneity Analyzed by CT-Based Habitat Analysis for Clinical Management of Cancers: A Narrative Review.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Prediction of tumor regression grading in rectal cancer neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a habitat radiomics analysis of imaging biomarker.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the incremental diagnostic value of habitat radiomics for risk stratification of thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) based on contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Methods: This retrospective study included 220 patients with pathologically confirmed TETs (82 high-risk [B2/B3/thymic carcinoma] and 138 low-risk [A/AB/B1]) who underwent preoperative CECT. Tumors were segmented into 3 subregions (habitats) using k-means clustering, and radiomic features were extracted from both whole-tumor and subregions. After feature selection (variance threshold, reproducibility evaluation, XGBoost-based importance ranking, and recursive feature elimination), three machine learning models were developed (1): a conventional radiomics model (2), a habitat radiomics model, and (3) a combined model integrating both feature sets. Model performance was evaluated using ROC analysis, net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), calibration metrics, and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: The combined model demonstrated superior discrimination (AUC: 0.900) compared to the conventional (AUC: 0.819) and habitat (AUC: 0.734) radiomics models in the independent test set. Although DeLong's test showed no statistically significant difference (p=0.161), the performance of combined model demonstrated incremental diagnostic value (NRI: 0.286; IDI: 0.209). Calibration and DCA confirmed its robustness and higher net benefit across decision thresholds. While the models' training performance might suggest overfitting, their test results demonstrate generalizability. Conclusions: The habitat radiomics approach enables accurate risk stratification prediction in TETs and demonstrates potential as a clinically valuable tool to augment the performance of conventional radiomics models in routine 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.