The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: Besides basic measurements as maximum standardized uptake value (SUV)max or SUVmean derived from 18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PET) scans, more advanced quantitative imaging features (i.e. "Radiomics" features) are increasingly investigated for treatment monitoring, outcome prediction, or as potential biomarkers. With these prospected applications of Radiomics features, it is a requisite that they provide robust and reliable measurements. The aim of our study was therefore to perform an integrated stability analysis of a large number of PET-derived features in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), based on both a test-retest and an inter-observer setup. METHODS: Eleven NSCLC patients were included in the test-retest cohort. Patients underwent repeated PET imaging within a one day interval, before any treatment was delivered. Lesions were delineated by applying a threshold of 50% of the maximum uptake value within the tumor. Twenty-three NSCLC patients were included in the inter-observer cohort. Patients underwent a diagnostic whole body PET-computed tomography (CT). Lesions were manually delineated based on fused PET-CT, using a standardized clinical delineation protocol. Delineation was performed independently by five observers, blinded to each other. Fifteen first order statistics, 39 descriptors of intensity volume histograms, eight geometric features and 44 textural features were extracted. For every feature, test-retest and inter-observer stability was assessed with the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the coefficient of variability, normalized to mean and range. Similarity between test-retest and inter-observer stability rankings of features was assessed with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Results showed that the majority of assessed features had both a high test-retest (71%) and inter-observer (91%) stability in terms of their ICC. Overall, features more stable in repeated PET imaging were also found to be more robust against inter-observer variability. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that further research of quantitative imaging features is warranted with respect to more advanced applications of PET imaging as being used for treatment monitoring, outcome prediction or imaging biomarkers.
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
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
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
Radiomics: the process and the challenges
Kumar, V., Gu, Y., Basu, S., Berglund, A., Eschrich, S. A., Schabath, M. B., Forster, K., Aerts, H. J. W. L., Dekker, A., Fenstermacher, D., et al. (2012) · Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.06.010 · Cited by 2,258
Self-citationAgreement Between Methods of Measurement with Multiple Observations Per Individual
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2007) · Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10543400701329422 · Cited by 1,864
Repeatability of 18F-FDG Uptake Measurements in Tumors: A Metaanalysis
de Langen, A. J., Vincent, A., Velasquez, L. M., van Tinteren, H., Boellaard, R., Shankar, L. K., Boers, M., Smit, E. F., Stroobants, S., Weber, W. A., et al. (2012) · Journal of Nuclear Medicine · doi:10.2967/jnumed.111.095299 · Cited by 157
Self-citation
Cited by
Radiomics 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
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
Self-citationCT-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
Self-citationEthical and Bias Considerations in Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning
Hanna, M. G., Pantanowitz, L., Jackson, B., Palmer, O., Visweswaran, S., Pantanowitz, J., Deebajah, M., & Rashidi, H. H. (2025) · Modern Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100686 · Cited by 535
Park, J. E., Park, S. Y., Kim, H. J., & Kim, H. S. (2019) · Korean Journal of Radiology · doi:10.3348/kjr.2018.0070 · Cited by 388
Metadata
- Authors
- Leijenaar, R. T. H., Carvalho, S., Velazquez, E. R., van Elmpt, W. J. C., Parmar, C., Hoekstra, O. S., Hoekstra, C. J., Boellaard, R., Dekker, A. L. A. J., Gillies, R. J., Aerts, H. J. W. L., & Lambin, P.
- Venue
- Acta Oncologica
- Published
- 2013-09-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1391-1397
- ISSN
- 0284-186X (ISSN-L)
- 1651-226X
- OpenAlex
- W2089588713
- Cited by
- 427
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/0284186x.2013.812798
- The paper
- Leijenaar, R. T. H., Carvalho, S., Velazquez, E. R., van Elmpt, W. J. C., Parmar, C., Hoekstra, O. S., Hoekstra, C. J., Boellaard, R., Dekker, A. L. A. J., Gillies, R. J., Aerts, H. J. W. L., & Lambin, P. (2013). Stability of FDG-PET Radiomics features: An integrated analysis of test-retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncologica. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2013.812798
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.