The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reproducibility of CT Radiomic Features within the Same Patient: Influence of Radiation Dose and CT Reconstruction Settings
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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”
From Prognostication and clinical opportunities with AI for coronary artery calcium: a scoping review (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
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
Molecular portraits of human breast tumours
Perou, C., Sørlie, T., Eisen, M., van de Rijn, M., Jeffrey, S., Rees, C. A., Pollack, J., Ross, D., Johnsen, H., Akslen, L., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35021093 · Cited by 16,551
Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression patterns
Eisen, M. B., Spellman, P. T., Brown, P. O., & Botstein, D. (1998) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.95.25.14863 · Cited by 16,184
Nishimura, R., Osako, T., Nishiyama, Y., Tashima, R., Nakano, M., Fujisue, M., Toyozumi, Y., & Arima, N. (2013) · Oncology · doi:10.1159/000353099 · Cited by 13,239
Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data
Gillies, R. J., Kinahan, P. E., & Hricak, H. (2016) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015151169 · Cited by 8,421
Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach
Aerts, H. J. W. L., Velazquez, E. R., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Carvalho, S., Bussink, J., Monshouwer, R., Haibe-Kains, B., Rietveld, D., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5006 · Cited by 5,132
Ki67 expression in breast cancer
Elkablawy, M. A., Albasri, A. M., Mohammed, R. A., Hussainy, A. S., Nouh, M. M., & Alhujaily, A. S. (2016) · Saudi Medical Journal · doi:10.15537/smj.2016.2.12285 · Cited by 4,382
dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting and comparing trees of hierarchical clustering
Galili, T. (2015) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv428 · Cited by 1,826
Huang, Y., Liang, C., He, L., Tian, J., Liang, C., Chen, X., Ma, Z., & Liu, Z. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.65.9128 · Cited by 1,753
Choi, H., Charnsangavej, C., Faria, S., Macapinlac, H., Burgess, M., Patel, S. R., Chen, L. L., Podoloff, D., & Benjamin, R. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2006.07.3049 · Cited by 1,508
Sun, R., Limkin, E. J., Vakalopoulou, M., Dercle, L., Champiat, S., Han, S. R., Verlingue, L., Brandao, D., Lancia, A., Ammari, S., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30413-3 · Cited by 1,236
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Robins M, 2018, Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2018—physics of medical imaging. Vol 10573, 105733W
- Midya A, 2018, J Med Imaging (Bellingham), 5, 011020
- R Development Core Team. R, 2010, A language and environment for statistical computing
- Hatt M, 2018, J Nucl Med, 59, 287
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zwanenburg, A., Vallières, M., Abdalah, M. A., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Andrearczyk, V., Apte, A., Ashrafinia, S., Bakas, S., Beukinga, R. J., Boellaard, R., et al. (2020) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020191145 · Cited by 4,177
AI applications to medical images: From machine learning to deep learning
Castiglioni, I., Rundo, L., Codari, M., Leo, G. D., Salvatore, C., Interlenghi, M., Gallivanone, F., Cozzi, A., D’Amico, N. C., & Sardanelli, F. (2021) · Physica Medica · doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.02.006 · Cited by 779
Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Cheng, Y., Li, B., Teng, X.-Z., Zhang, J., Lam, S., Zhou, T., Ma, Z., Sheng, J., et al. (2023) · Military Medical Research · doi:10.1186/s40779-023-00458-8 · Cited by 218
Wang, S., Yu, H., Gan, Y., Wu, Z., Li, E., Li, X., Cao, J., Zhu, Y., Wang, L., Deng, H., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00024-3 · Cited by 182
Yang, N., Ser, J. D., Walsh, S. L. F., Schönlieb, C., Roberts, M. T., SELBY, I. A., Howard, K., Owen, J., Neville, J., Guiot, J., et al. (2022) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2022.01.001 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 293
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 583-591
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- PMC
- PMC10860741
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
