ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Hunting for signal in the noise: identifying robust CT radiomic features across variable scanning settings.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRadiomics offers the potential to derive quantitative biomarkers from medical images, but its clinical implementation remains limited by poor reproducibility and uncertainty about whether features capture true biological signals or merely reflect noise. This study systematically evaluated the repeatability of CT radiomic features from a biological phantom to identify features that are both reproducible and informative. MATERIALS AND
methodsA bovine phantom was analyzed to assess the reproducibility of radiomic features across different acquisition and reconstruction settings. Radiomic features were extracted and classified as "Reliable," "Variable," or "Unreliable" based on their repeatability and comparison with air. The results of this analysis were compared with those from a similar experiment performed at another institution to evaluate inter-site consistency. Finally, cross-referenced results from the phantom analyses were validated in a clinical scenario.
resultsAcross different slice thicknesses, the number of "Reliable" features was higher in thinner-slice datasets and further improved after voxel resampling, while thicker slices showed inconsistent effects. The comparison between the two phantom experiments demonstrated moderate agreement, highlighting variability across acquisition settings but also identifying a consistent subset of robust features. In the clinical test, 83.3% of the "Reliable" features overlapped with those identified in the phantom experiments, confirming the reproducibility of the selected features in a real-world scenario.
conclusionCombining repeatability analysis with the noise sensitivity test offers a practical approach to identify robust radiomic features, improving feature selection and model reliability. Further validation is needed to refine thresholds and confirm clinical applicability. KEY POINTS: Question Radiomic features may capture structured noise rather than true biological signal. Identifying which features are genuinely informative remains a major unmet need in radiomics research. Findings Combining repeatability analysis with a noise sensitivity test allowed systematic identification of robust and informative CT radiomic features across multiple acquisition and reconstruction settings. Clinical relevance By distinguishing reproducible and biologically meaningful radiomic features from noise-driven ones, this approach can improve the reliability and generalizability of radiomics-based models, supporting more accurate and trustworthy imaging biomarkers for clinical decision-making and personalized patient care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41417126What 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.