Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 355

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

MR Imaging of Rectal Cancer: Radiomics Analysis to Assess Treatment Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy

Open access
Horvat, Natally, Veeraraghavan, Harini, Khan, Monika, Blazic, Ivana, Zheng, Junting, Capanu, Marinela, Sala, Evis, Garcia-Aguilar, Julio, Gollub, Marc J., Petkovska, Iva·2018·Radiology

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the value of T2-weighted–based radiomics compared with qualitative assessment at T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging for diagnosis of clinical complete response in patients with rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy–radiation therapy (CRT). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 114 patients with rectal cancer who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after CRT between March 2012 and February 2016. Median age among women (47 of 114, 41%) was 55.9 years (interquartile range, 45.4–66.7 years) and median age among men (67 of 114, 59%) was 55 years (interquartile range, 48–67 years). Surgical histopathologic analysis was the reference standard for pathologic complete response (pCR). For qualitative assessment, two radiologists reached a consensus. For radiomics, one radiologist segmented the volume of interest on high-spatial-resolution T2-weighted images. A random forest classifier was trained to separate the patients by their outcomes after balancing the number of patients in each response category by using the synthetic minority oversampling technique. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, McNemar test, and Benjamini-Hochberg method. Results Twenty-one of 114 patients (18%) achieved pCR. The radiomic classifier demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87, 0.96), sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 0.84, 1), specificity of 91% (95% CI: 0.84, 0.96), positive predictive value of 72% (95% CI: 0.53, 0.87), and negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI: 0.96, 1). The diagnostic performance of radiomics was significantly higher than was qualitative assessment at T2-weighted imaging or DW imaging alone (P < .02). The specificity and positive predictive values were significantly higher in radiomics than were at combined T2-weighted and DW imaging (P < .0001). Conclusion T2-weighted–based radiomics showed better classification performance compared with qualitative assessment at T2-weighted and DW imaging for diagnosing pCR in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer after CRT. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

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 · 10.1148/radiol.2018172300

Cites

42 of 42 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

Show all 42 references

Cited by

See all 355

Metadata

Authors
Horvat, N., Veeraraghavan, H., Khan, M., Blazic, I., Zheng, J., Capanu, M., Sala, E., Garcia-Aguilar, J., Gollub, M. J., & Petkovska, I.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2018-06
Volume
287
Issue
3
Pages
833-843
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2793785683
Cited by
355
References
42
FWCI
23.62
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MR Imaging of Rectal Cancer: Radiomics Analysis to Assess Treatment Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2018172300
The paper
Horvat, N., Veeraraghavan, H., Khan, M., Blazic, I., Zheng, J., Capanu, M., Sala, E., Garcia-Aguilar, J., Gollub, M. J., & Petkovska, I. (2018). MR Imaging of Rectal Cancer: Radiomics Analysis to Assess Treatment Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172300

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.