ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Evaluating consistency of radiomic features derived from CT images: A cross-center phantom study.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. 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.
- Evaluating consistency of radiomic features derived from CT images: A cross-center phantom study.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the consistency of radiomic features extracted from computed tomography (CT) scans across CT radiotherapy simulators geographically spread across a Canadian province using a simplified lung radiomic phantom, and to determine whether it is appropriate to combine multicenter imaging data into a single dataset.
methodsAn inexpensive phantom was created using foam with a density similar to lung and a plastic vial insert filled with water. It was imaged at six provincial radiotherapy treatment centers using eight GE CT radiotherapy simulators and routine lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy planning CT acquisition protocols. Radiomic features were extracted from regions of interest using Imaging Biomarker Explorer radiomics software and compared using Kruskal Wallis H tests, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and coefficient of variation (CV).
resultsImage acquisition parameters were similar across centers. At the population level, no significant inconsistencies between radiomic features originating from different centers or from within the same center were observed (Bonferroni-corrected p > 0.05; ICC > 0.941). On average, 52.5% of features were considered consistent (CV ≤ 0.10).
conclusionsThe proposed phantom was transported across widespread centers without detectable damage and demonstrates potential for easy quality assurance checks on radiomic feature consistency within a multi-institutional setting. Our analysis suggests that some features should be omitted or standardized before combining provincial imaging data into a harmonized lung radiotherapy dataset. These preliminary findings lay the groundwork for further investigation into provincial radiomic feature consistency and potential application to multicenter clinical studies. Owing to potential differences in imaging protocols, a consistency evaluation should be performed before undertaking radiomic analysis of data combined from different institutions.
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.