Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 585

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intrinsic dependencies of CT radiomic features on voxel size and number of gray levels

Open access
Shafiq‐ul‐Hassan, Muhammad, Zhang, Geoffrey G., Latifi, Kujtim, Ullah, Ghanim, Hunt, Dylan C., Balagurunathan, Yoganand, Abdalah, Mahmoud Abrahem, Schabath, Matthew B., Goldgof, Dmitry G., Mackin, Dennis, Court, Laurence Edward, Gillies, Robert James, Moros, Eduardo Gerardo·2017·Medical Physics

Abstract

Purpose: Many radiomics features were originally developed for non‐medical imaging applications and therefore original assumptions may need to be reexamined. In this study, we investigated the impact of slice thickness and pixel spacing (or pixel size) on radiomics features extracted from Computed Tomography (CT) phantom images acquired with different scanners as well as different acquisition and reconstruction parameters. The dependence of CT texture features on gray‐level discretization was also evaluated. Methods and materials: A texture phantom composed of 10 different cartridges of different materials was scanned on eight different CT scanners from three different manufacturers. The images were reconstructed for various slice thicknesses. For each slice thickness, the reconstruction Field Of View (FOV) was varied to render pixel sizes ranging from 0.39 to 0.98 mm. A fixed spherical region of interest (ROI) was contoured on the images of the shredded rubber cartridge and the 3D printed, 20% fill, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic cartridge (ABS 20) for all phantom imaging sets. Radiomic features were extracted from the ROI s using an in‐house program. Features categories were: shape (10), intensity (16), GLCM (24), GLZSM (11), GLRLM (11), and NGTDM (5), fractal dimensions (8) and first‐order wavelets (128), for a total of 213 features. Voxel‐size resampling was performed to investigate the usefulness of extracting features using a suitably chosen voxel size. Acquired phantom image sets were resampled to a voxel size of 1 × 1 × 2 mm 3 using linear interpolation. Image features were therefore extracted from resampled and original datasets and the absolute value of the percent coefficient of variation (%COV) for each feature was calculated. Based on the %COV values, features were classified in 3 groups: (1) features with large variations before and after resampling (%COV >50); (2) features with diminished variation (%COV <30) after resampling; and (3) features that had originally moderate variation (%COV <50%) and were negligibly affected by resampling. Group 2 features were further studied by modifying feature definitions to include voxel size. Original and voxel‐size normalized features were used for interscanner comparisons. A subsequent analysis investigated feature dependency on gray‐level discretization by extracting 51 texture features from ROI s from each of the 10 different phantom cartridges using 16, 32, 64, 128, and 256 gray levels. Results: Out of the 213 features extracted, 150 were reproducible across voxel sizes, 42 improved significantly (%COV <30, Group 2) after resampling, and 21 had large variations before and after resampling (Group 1). Ten features improved significantly after definition modification effectively removed their voxel‐size dependency. Interscanner comparison indicated that feature variability among scanners nearly vanished for 8 of these 10 features. Furthermore, 17 out of 51 texture features were found to be dependent on the number of gray levels. These features were redefined to include the number of gray levels which greatly reduced this dependency. Conclusion: Voxel‐size resampling is an appropriate pre‐processing step for image datasets acquired with variable voxel sizes to obtain more reproducible CT features. We found that some of the radiomics features were voxel size and gray‐level discretization‐dependent. The introduction of normalizing factors in their definitions greatly reduced or removed these dependencies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mp.12123

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 585

Metadata

Authors
Shafiq‐ul‐Hassan, M., Zhang, G. G., Latifi, K., Ullah, G., Hunt, D. C., Balagurunathan, Y., Abdalah, M. A., Schabath, M. B., Goldgof, D. G., Mackin, D., Court, L. E., Gillies, R. J., & Moros, E. G.
Venue
Medical Physics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
1050-1062
ISSN
  • 0094-2405 (ISSN-L)
  • 2473-4209
OpenAlex
W2579949149
Cited by
585
References
5
FWCI
36.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.