Cited by 258Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsRadiation Dose and Imaging

Reproducibility of CT Radiomic Features within the Same Patient: Influence of Radiation Dose and CT Reconstruction Settings

Open access
Meyer, Mathias, Ronald, James, Vernuccio, Federica, Nelson, Rendon C., Ramirez-Giraldo, Juan Carlos, Solomon, Justin, Patel, Bhavik N., Samei, Ehsan +1 more·2019·Radiology

Abstract

Background Results of recent phantom studies show that variation in CT acquisition parameters and reconstruction techniques may make radiomic features largely nonreproduceable and of limited use for prognostic clinical studies. Purpose To investigate the effect of CT radiation dose and reconstruction settings on the reproducibility of radiomic features, as well as to identify correction factors for mitigating these sources of variability. Materials and Methods This was a secondary analysis of a prospective study of metastatic liver lesions in patients who underwent staging with single-energy dual-source contrast material–enhanced staging CT between September 2011 and April 2012. Technique parameters were altered, resulting in 28 CT data sets per patient that included different dose levels, section thicknesses, kernels, and reconstruction algorithm settings. By using a training data set (n = 76), reproducible intensity, shape, and texture radiomic features (reproducibility threshold, R2 ≥ 0.95) were selected and correction factors were calculated by using a linear model to convert each radiomic feature to its estimated value in a reference technique. By using a test data set (n = 75), the reproducibility of hierarchical clustering based on 106 radiomic features measured with different CT techniques was assessed. Results Data in 78 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 10; 33 women) with 151 liver lesions were included. The percentage of radiomic features deemed reproducible for any variation of the different technical parameters was 11% (12 of 106). Of all technical parameters, reconstructed section thickness had the largest impact on the reproducibility of radiomic features (12.3% [13 of 106]) if only one technical parameter was changed while all other technical parameters were kept constant. The results of the hierarchical cluster analysis showed improved clustering reproducibility when reproducible radiomic features with dedicated correction factors were used (ρ = 0.39–0.71 vs ρ = 0.14–0.47). Conclusion Most radiomic features are highly affected by CT acquisition and reconstruction settings, to the point of being nonreproducible. Selecting reproducible radiomic features along with study-specific correction factors offers improved clustering reproducibility. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sosna in this issue.

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.2019190928

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • Radiomic features are highly sensitive to CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters; features identified as strongly predictive in one scanner environment or protocol may not generalise to another.

    “However, radiomic features are highly sensitive to CT acquisition and reconstruction parameters; features identified as strongly predictive in one scanner environment or protocol may not generalise to another.3839”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]Robins M, Solomon J, Hoye J, Abadi E, Marin D, Samei E. How reliable are texture measurements? In: Lo JY, Gilat Schmidt T, Chen GH, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2018—physics of medical imaging. Vol 10573. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2018; 105733W.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meyer, M., Ronald, J., Vernuccio, F., Nelson, R. C., Ramirez-Giraldo, J. C., Solomon, J., Patel, B. N., Samei, E., & Marin, D.
Affiliations
Heidelberg University (DE)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2019-12
Volume
293
Issue
3
Pages
583-591
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2977270522
Cited by
258
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 2
FWCI
21.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Siemens Healthineers
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (R01EB001838)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiation Dose and Imaging
Keywords
CT radiomics, reproducibility, radiation dose, section thickness, kernel, reconstruction algorithms, correction factors, metastatic liver lesions, hierarchical clustering
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Contrast Media, Female, Humans, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Prospective Studies, Radiation Dosage, Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results

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