The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reproducibility and Prognosis of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images
Open accessAbstract
We study the reproducibility of quantitative imaging features that are used to describe tumor shape, size, and texture from computed tomography (CT) scans of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). CT images are dependent on various scanning factors. We focus on characterizing image features that are reproducible in the presence of variations due to patient factors and segmentation methods. Thirty-two NSCLC nonenhanced lung CT scans were obtained from the Reference Image Database to Evaluate Response data set. The tumors were segmented using both manual (radiologist expert) and ensemble (software-automated) methods. A set of features (219 three-dimensional and 110 two-dimensional) was computed, and quantitative image features were statistically filtered to identify a subset of reproducible and nonredundant features. The variability in the repeated experiment was measured by the test-retest concordance correlation coefficient (CCCTreT). The natural range in the features, normalized to variance, was measured by the dynamic range (DR). In this study, there were 29 features across segmentation methods found with CCCTreT and DR ≥ 0.9 and R(2) Bet ≥ 0.95. These reproducible features were tested for predicting radiologist prognostic score; some texture features (run-length and Laws kernels) had an area under the curve of 0.9. The representative features were tested for their prognostic capabilities using an independent NSCLC data set (59 lung adenocarcinomas), where one of the texture features, run-length gray-level nonuniformity, was statistically significant in separating the samples into survival groups (P ≤ .046).
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
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1992) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_25 · Cited by 45,181
Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations
Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1958.10501452 · Cited by 39,158
Principles and procedures of statistics.
Steel, R. G. D., & Torrie, J. H. (1960) · Cited by 24,135
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
Robinson, H. F. (1961) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj1961.00021962005300050002x · Cited by 17,713
New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors
Therasse, P., Arbuck, S. G., Eisenhauer, E. A., Wanders, J., Kaplan, R. S., Rubinstein, L., Verweij, J., Van Glabbeke, M., van Oosterom, A. T., Christian, M. C., et al. (2000) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 · Cited by 15,660
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., Murray, T., & Thun, M. J. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0010 · Cited by 10,188
A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.
Lin, L. I.-K. (1989) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532051 · Cited by 8,785
Orthonormal bases of compactly supported wavelets
Daubechies, I. (1988) · Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1002/cpa.3160410705 · Cited by 8,190
A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics
Saeys, Y., Inza, I., & Larrañaga, P. (2007) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm344 · Cited by 5,244
Cited by
Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine
Lambin, P., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Deist, T. M., Peerlings, J., de Jong, E. E. C., van Timmeren, J., Sanduleanu, S., Larue, R. T. H. M., Even, A. J. G., Jochems, A., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141 · Cited by 5,688
Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications
Bi, W. L., Hosny, A., Schabath, M. B., Giger, M. L., Birkbak, N. J., Mehrtash, A., Allison, T., Arnaout, O., Abbosh, C., Dunn, I. F., et al. (2019) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21552 · Cited by 1,846
Self-citationRadiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection
van Timmeren, J. E., Cester, D., Tanadini-Lang, S., Alkadhi, H., & Baessler, B. (2020) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2 · Cited by 1,316
CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma
Coroller, T. P., Grossmann, P., Hou, Y., Rios Velazquez, E., Leijenaar, R. T. H., Hermann, G., Lambin, P., Haibe-Kains, B., Mak, R. H., & Aerts, H. J. W. L. (2015) · Radiotherapy and Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2015.02.015 · Cited by 695
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Balagurunathan, Y., Gu, Y., Wang, H., Kumar, V., Grove, O., Hawkins, S., Kim, J., Goldgof, D. B., Hall, L. O., Gatenby, R. A., & Gillies, R. J.
- Venue
- Translational Oncology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 72-87
- ISSN
- 1936-5233 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2062744135
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 18.04
- 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: Reproducibility and Prognosis of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1593/tlo.13844
- The paper
- Balagurunathan, Y., Gu, Y., Wang, H., Kumar, V., Grove, O., Hawkins, S., Kim, J., Goldgof, D. B., Hall, L. O., Gatenby, R. A., & Gillies, R. J. (2014). Reproducibility and Prognosis of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images. Translational Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1593/tlo.13844
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.
