ArticleScientific reports2026
Cancer classification with radiomics in controlled preclinical models.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The premise of radiomics involves extracting high-dimensional quantitative features from medical images to aid clinical decision-making. While radiomics has shown promise in predicting disease characteristics, concerns regarding confounders, reproducibility, and interpretability limit its clinical adoption. In this study, we assessed the ability of radiomic features extracted from contoured CT images to classify two distinct tumour models, CT26 colorectal cancer (CRC) and 4T1 breast cancer (BC), in a highly controlled murine setting. We aimed to provide compelling data for the role of radiomics as a reliable cancer biomarker. We benchmarked radiomics-based classification against previously established blood-based biomarkers, including leukocyte populations and plasma proteins. Feature filtering reduced the original 1409 radiomic features to 18 non-redundant, high-importance predictors, primarily texture-based transformations. Unsupervised clustering via UMAP revealed that radiomics-based features did not segregate tumour types as effectively as blood biomarkers, suggesting potential confounding factors. Supervised machine learning using Random Forest showed that radiomic features achieved a classification accuracy of 0.87, lower than the 0.96 and 0.99 accuracies obtained with cell and plasma biomarkers, respectively. Furthermore, integrating radiomics with blood biomarkers did not enhance classification performance, and feature importance analysis using SHAP identified blood-based markers as the dominant predictors. These findings suggest that while radiomics retains some predictive value, it is less effective than blood biomarkers in this classification task and does not significantly contribute to multimodal tumour classification models. Our study underscores the need for further standardization and validation of radiomics before its clinical implementation.
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.