Cited by 204Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingMRI in cancer diagnosisAI in cancer detection

Cancer imaging phenomics toolkit: quantitative imaging analytics for precision diagnostics and predictive modeling of clinical outcome

Open access
Davatzikos, Christos, Rathore, Saima, Bakas, Spyridon, Pati, Sarthak, Bergman, Mark, Kalarot, Ratheesh, Sridharan, Patmaa, Gastounioti, Aimilia +17 more·2018·Journal of Medical Imaging

Abstract

The growth of multiparametric imaging protocols has paved the way for quantitative imaging phenotypes that predict treatment response and clinical outcome, reflect underlying cancer molecular characteristics and spatiotemporal heterogeneity, and can guide personalized treatment planning. This growth has underlined the need for efficient quantitative analytics to derive high-dimensional imaging signatures of diagnostic and predictive value in this emerging era of integrated precision diagnostics. This paper presents cancer imaging phenomics toolkit (CaPTk), a new and dynamically growing software platform for analysis of radiographic images of cancer, currently focusing on brain, breast, and lung cancer. CaPTk leverages the value of quantitative imaging analytics along with machine learning to derive phenotypic imaging signatures, based on two-level functionality. First, image analysis algorithms are used to extract comprehensive panels of diverse and complementary features, such as multiparametric intensity histogram distributions, texture, shape, kinetics, connectomics, and spatial patterns. At the second level, these quantitative imaging signatures are fed into multivariate machine learning models to produce diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers. Results from clinical studies in three areas are shown: (i) computational neuro-oncology of brain gliomas for precision diagnostics, prediction of outcome, and treatment planning; (ii) prediction of treatment response for breast and lung cancer, and (iii) risk assessment for breast cancer.

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 · 10.1117/1.jmi.5.1.011018

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The BraTS challenge provides the largest publicly available and manually-curated mpMRI dataset of diffuse glioma patients and a harmonized preprocessing pipeline to handle inter-site acquisition protocol differences.

    “The BraTS challenge35–38, seeking methodological advancements in the domain of neuro-oncology, has been providing the community with (i) the largest publicly available and manually-curated mpMRI dataset of diffuse glioma patients (an example of which is illustrated in Fig. 1b), and (ii) a harmonized preprocessing pipeline51,70,71 to handle differences in inter-site acquisition protocols.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. S. Bakas et al., "Segmentation of gliomas in multimodal magnetic res- onance imaging volumes based on a hybrid generative-discriminative framework," in Proc. of the Multimodal Brain Tumor Image Segmentation Challenge (BRATS), pp. 5-12 (2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davatzikos, C., Rathore, S., Bakas, S., Pati, S., Bergman, M., Kalarot, R., Sridharan, P., Gastounioti, A., Jahani, N., Cohen, E., Akbari, H., Tunc, B., Doshi, J., Parker, D., Hsieh, M., Sotiras, A., Li, H., Ou, Y., Doot, R. K., Bilello, M., Fan, Y., Shinohara, R. T., Yushkevich, P., Verma, R., & Kontos, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Univ. of Pennsylvania
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Venue
Journal of Medical Imaging
Published
2018-01-11
Volume
5
Issue
01
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 2329-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 2329-4310
OpenAlex
W2783923767
Cited by
204
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6
FWCI
12.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of medical imaging (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (U24CA189523-01A1)
  • US National Institutes of Health (R01NS042645-11A1, R01NS096606, R01CA197000-02)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
radiographic image analysis, brain glioma, breast cancer, lung cancer, treatment response prediction, prognostic factors, predictive biomarkers, texture analysis, connectomics, machine learning, precision diagnostics, risk assessment

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