ArticlePloS one2025
On the robustness of [18F]-FDG-PET radiomic features to variations in image acquisition and reconstruction settings: A phantom study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multiparametric PET/CT Tensor Radiomics for Stability-Aware Machine Learning in Lung Cancer Survival Prediction.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGreater access to clinically meaningful data from [18F]-FDG-PET images could be made possible through radiomics. However, the vulnerability of radiomic measurements to changes in image acquisition and reconstruction settings has raised concerns on their reliability in clinical practice.
methodsUsing the NEMA-IQ phantom, we evaluated the robustness of [18F]-FDG-PET radiomic features to variations in acquisition duration, reconstruction algorithm, transaxial matrix size, z-axis filtering, Gaussian smoothing, and other reconstruction algorithm-specific settings (number of iterations, subsets, updates, and penalisation factors). Feature robustness was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV < 10%) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC > 0.9). Non-robust features were examined for dependencies on these parameters that could be corrected using simple mathematical equations. Using mixed-effects models, we also explored whether differences in region volume or intensity could explain the variability of feature values.
resultsOur findings demonstrated that the majority of [18F]-FDG-PET radiomic features were not robust to variations in image acquisition/reconstruction parameters, with features displaying the least stability to matrix size. Robust features mainly comprised shape-based and entropy-related measurements. Most non-robust features did not possess a dependency on acquisition/reconstruction settings that could be corrected using simple equations. The volume and intensity of interrogated regions were also shown to be likely determinants of feature variability to these settings.
conclusionsCare should be taken when handling radiomic data extracted from heterogeneously acquired/reconstructed [18F]-FDG-PET images. Alternative strategies could be required to mitigate the effects of variations in these parameters on radiomic features.
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.