The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Many techniques are proposed for the quantification of tumor heterogeneity as an imaging biomarker for differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading, response monitoring and outcome prediction. However, in clinical practice these methods are barely used. This study evaluates the reported performance of the described methods and identifies barriers to their implementation in clinical practice. METHODOLOGY: The Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched up to 20 September 2013. Heterogeneity analysis methods were classified into four categories, i.e., non-spatial methods (NSM), spatial grey level methods (SGLM), fractal analysis (FA) methods, and filters and transforms (F&T). The performance of the different methods was compared. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of the 7351 potentially relevant publications, 209 were included. Of these studies, 58% reported the use of NSM, 49% SGLM, 10% FA, and 28% F&T. Differentiation between tumor types, tumor grading and/or outcome prediction was the goal in 87% of the studies. Overall, the reported area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.5 to 1 (median 0.87). No relation was found between the performance and the quantification methods used, or between the performance and the imaging modality. A negative correlation was found between the tumor-feature ratio and the AUC, which is presumably caused by overfitting in small datasets. Cross-validation was reported in 63% of the classification studies. Retrospective analyses were conducted in 57% of the studies without a clear description. CONCLUSIONS: In a research setting, heterogeneity quantification methods can differentiate between tumor types, grade tumors, and predict outcome and monitor treatment effects. To translate these methods to clinical practice, more prospective studies are required that use external datasets for validation: these datasets should be made available to the community to facilitate the development of new and improved methods.
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.
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
Textural Features for Image Classification
Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K., & Dinstein, I. (1973) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1973.4309314 · Cited by 22,886
Multiresolution gray-scale and rotation invariant texture classification with local binary patterns
Ojala, T., Pietikainen, M., & Maenpaa, T. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2002.1017623 · Cited by 15,398
A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions
Ojala, T., Pietikäinen, M., & Harwood, D. (1996) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/0031-3203(95)00067-4 · Cited by 6,882
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
Quantifying spatial heterogeneity in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI parameter maps
Rose, C. J., Mills, S. J., O'Connor, J. P. B., Buonaccorsi, G. A., Roberts, C., Watson, Y., Cheung, S., Zhao, S., Whitcher, B., Jackson, A., et al. (2009) · Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · doi:10.1002/mrm.22003 · Cited by 125
Combining support vector machine with genetic algorithm to classify ultrasound breast tumor images
Wu, W.-J., Lin, S.-W., & Moon, W. K. (2012) · Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.compmedimag.2012.07.004 · Cited by 99
Cited by
Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers
Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Bussink, J., Lambin, P., & Aerts, H. J. W. L. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep13087 · Cited by 1,019
Imaging Intratumor Heterogeneity: Role in Therapy Response, Resistance, and Clinical Outcome
O'Connor, J. P. B., Rose, C. J., Waterton, J. C., Carano, R. A. D., Parker, G. J. M., & Jackson, A. (2015) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0990 · Cited by 677
Di Leo, G., & Sardanelli, F. (2020) · European Radiology Experimental · doi:10.1186/s41747-020-0145-y · Cited by 455
Liu, Z., Li, M., Zuo, C., Yang, Z., Yang, X., Ren, S., Peng, Y., Sun, G., Shen, J., Cheng, C., et al. (2021) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-021-07778-0 · Cited by 46
Radiomic mapping model for prediction of Ki-67 expression in adrenocortical carcinoma
Ahmed, A. A., Elmohr, M. M., Fuentes, D., Habra, M. A., Fisher, S. B., Perrier, N. D., Zhang, M., & Elsayes, K. M. (2020) · Clinical Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.crad.2020.01.012 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Alic, L., Niessen, W. J., & Veenland, J. F.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-10-20
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e110300
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059378660
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0110300
- The paper
- Alic, L., Niessen, W. J., & Veenland, J. F. (2014). Quantification of Heterogeneity as a Biomarker in Tumor Imaging: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110300
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.