Abstract Even though radiomics can hold great potential for supporting clinical decision-making, its current use is mostly limited to academic research, without applications in routine clinical practice. The workflow of radiomics is complex due to several methodological steps and nuances, which often leads to inadequate reporting and evaluation, and poor reproducibility. Available reporting guidelines and checklists for artificial intelligence and predictive modeling include relevant good practices, but they are not tailored to radiomic research. There is a clear need for a complete radiomics checklist for study planning, manuscript writing, and evaluation during the review process to facilitate the repeatability and reproducibility of studies. We here present a documentation standard for radiomic research that can guide authors and reviewers. Our motivation is to improve the quality and reliability and, in turn, the reproducibility of radiomic research. We name the checklist CLEAR (CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research), to convey the idea of being more transparent. With its 58 items, the CLEAR checklist should be considered a standardization tool providing the minimum requirements for presenting clinical radiomics research. In addition to a dynamic online version of the checklist, a public repository has also been set up to allow the radiomics community to comment on the checklist items and adapt the checklist for future versions. Prepared and revised by an international group of experts using a modified Delphi method, we hope the CLEAR checklist will serve well as a single and complete scientific documentation tool for authors and reviewers to improve the radiomics literature. 

/pdf/checklist-for-evaluation-of-radiomics-research-clear-a-step-12ksix6l.pdf

CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII

Abstract Purpose To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies. Methods We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated. Result In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community. Conclusion In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers. Critical relevance statement A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning. Key points • A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score ( https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html ) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community ( https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics ). Graphical Abstract 

METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS): a quality scoring tool for radiomics research endorsed by EuSoMII

The Image Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI) aims to improve reproducibility of radiomics studies by standardising the computational process of extracting image biomarkers (features) from images. We have previously established reference values for 169 commonly used features, created a standard radiomics image processing scheme, and developed reporting guidelines for radiomic studies. However, several aspects are not standardised. 
Here we present a preliminary version of a reference manual on the use of convolutional image filters in radiomics. Filters, such as wavelets or Laplacian of Gaussian filters, play an important part in emphasising specific image characteristics such as edges and blobs. Features derived from filter response maps have been found to be poorly reproducible. This reference manual forms the basis of ongoing work on standardising convolutional filters in radiomics, and will be updated as this work progresses.

Standardised convolutional filtering for radiomics.

Abstract Background Accurate classification of sites of interest on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) images is an important diagnostic requirement for the differentiation of prostate cancer (PCa) from foci of physiologic uptake. We developed a deep learning and radiomics framework to perform lesion-level and patient-level classification on PSMA PET images of patients with PCa. Methods This was an IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Lesions on [ 18 F]DCFPyL PET/CT scans were assigned to PSMA reporting and data system (PSMA-RADS) categories and randomly partitioned into training, validation, and test sets. The framework extracted image features, radiomic features, and tissue type information from a cropped PET image slice containing a lesion and performed PSMA-RADS and PCa classification. Performance was evaluated by assessing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). A t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) analysis was performed. Confidence and probability scores were measured. Statistical significance was determined using a two-tailed t test. Results PSMA PET scans from 267 men with PCa had 3794 lesions assigned to PSMA-RADS categories. The framework yielded AUROC values of 0.87 and 0.90 for lesion-level and patient-level PSMA-RADS classification, respectively, on the test set. The framework yielded AUROC values of 0.92 and 0.85 for lesion-level and patient-level PCa classification, respectively, on the test set. A t-SNE analysis revealed learned relationships between the PSMA-RADS categories and disease findings. Mean confidence scores reflected the expected accuracy and were significantly higher for correct predictions than for incorrect predictions ( P &lt; 0.05). Measured probability scores reflected the likelihood of PCa consistent with the PSMA-RADS framework. Conclusion The framework provided lesion-level and patient-level PSMA-RADS and PCa classification on PSMA PET images. The framework was interpretable and provided confidence and probability scores that may assist physicians in making more informed clinical decisions. 

/pdf/deep-learning-and-radiomics-framework-for-psma-rads-177qouu4.pdf

Deep learning and radiomics framework for PSMA-RADS classification of prostate cancer on PSMA PET

Abstract Background The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds transformative potential in medicine. However, the lack of universal reporting guidelines poses challenges in ensuring the validity and reproducibility of published research studies in this field. Methods Based on a systematic review of academic publications and reporting standards demanded by both international consortia and regulatory stakeholders as well as leading journals in the fields of medicine and medical informatics, 26 reporting guidelines published between 2009 and 2023 were included in this analysis. Guidelines were stratified by breadth (general or specific to medical fields), underlying consensus quality, and target research phase (preclinical, translational, clinical) and subsequently analyzed regarding the overlap and variations in guideline items. Results AI reporting guidelines for medical research vary with respect to the quality of the underlying consensus process, breadth, and target research phase. Some guideline items such as reporting of study design and model performance recur across guidelines, whereas other items are specific to particular fields and research stages. Conclusions Our analysis highlights the importance of reporting guidelines in clinical AI research and underscores the need for common standards that address the identified variations and gaps in current guidelines. Overall, this comprehensive overview could help researchers and public stakeholders reinforce quality standards for increased reliability, reproducibility, clinical validity, and public trust in AI research in healthcare. This could facilitate the safe, effective, and ethical translation of AI methods into clinical applications that will ultimately improve patient outcomes. 

Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this guideline is to provide comprehensive information on best practices for robust radiomics analyses for both hand-crafted and deep learning-based approaches. Methods In a cooperative effort between the EANM and SNMMI, we agreed upon current best practices and recommendations for relevant aspects of radiomics analyses, including study design, quality assurance, data collection, impact of acquisition and reconstruction, detection and segmentation, feature standardization and implementation, as well as appropriate modelling schemes, model evaluation, and interpretation. We also offer an outlook for future perspectives. Conclusion Radiomics is a very quickly evolving field of research. The present guideline focused on established findings as well as recommendations based on the state of the art. Though this guideline recognizes both hand-crafted and deep learning-based radiomics approaches, it primarily focuses on the former as this field is more mature. This guideline will be updated once more studies and results have contributed to improved consensus regarding the application of deep learning methods for radiomics. Although methodological recommendations in the present document are valid for most medical image modalities, we focus here on nuclear medicine, and specific recommendations when necessary are made for PET/CT, PET/MR, and quantitative SPECT. 

/pdf/joint-eanm-snmmi-guideline-on-radiomics-in-nuclear-medicine-3dy8j8sm.pdf

Joint EANM/SNMMI guideline on radiomics in nuclear medicine

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Zwanenburg

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Joint EANM/SNMMI guideline on radiomics in nuclear medicine