Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 363

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures

Open access
Larue, Ruben T H M, Defraene, Gilles, De Ruysscher, Dirk, Lambin, Philippe, van Elmpt, Wouter·2017·The British Journal of Radiology

Abstract

Quantitative analysis of tumour characteristics based on medical imaging is an emerging field of research. In recent years, quantitative imaging features derived from CT, positron emission tomography and MR scans were shown to be of added value in the prediction of outcome parameters in oncology, in what is called the radiomics field. However, results might be difficult to compare owing to a lack of standardized methodologies to conduct quantitative image analyses. In this review, we aim to present an overview of the current challenges, technical routines and protocols that are involved in quantitative imaging studies. The first issue that should be overcome is the dependency of several features on the scan acquisition and image reconstruction parameters. Adopting consistent methods in the subsequent target segmentation step is evenly crucial. To further establish robust quantitative image analyses, standardization or at least calibration of imaging features based on different feature extraction settings is required, especially for texture- and filter-based features. Several open-source and commercial software packages to perform feature extraction are currently available, all with slightly different functionalities, which makes benchmarking quite challenging. The number of imaging features calculated is typically larger than the number of patients studied, which emphasizes the importance of proper feature selection and prediction model-building routines to prevent overfitting. Even though many of these challenges still need to be addressed before quantitative imaging can be brought into daily clinical practice, radiomics is expected to be a critical component for the integration of image-derived information to personalize treatment in the future.

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 · 10.1259/bjr.20160665

Cites

83 of 83 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 83 references

Cited by

See all 363

Metadata

Authors
Larue, R. T. H. M., Defraene, G., De Ruysscher, D., Lambin, P., & van Elmpt, W.
Venue
The British Journal of Radiology
Published
2017-01-26
Volume
90
Issue
1070
Pages
20160665-20160665
ISSN
  • 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-880X
OpenAlex
W2566749675
Cited by
363
References
83
FWCI
30.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/bjr.20160665
The paper
Larue, R. T. H. M., Defraene, G., De Ruysscher, D., Lambin, P., & van Elmpt, W. (2017). Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures. The British Journal of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160665

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.