The impact of the variation of imaging factors on the robustness of Computed Tomography Radiomic Features: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The field of radiomics is at the forefront of personalized medicine. However, there are concerns regarding the robustness of its features against multiple medical imaging parameters and the performance of the predictive models built upon them. Therefore, our review aims to identify image perturbation factors (IPF) that most influence the robustness of radiomic features in biomedical research. We also provide insights into the validity and discrepancy of different methodologies applied to investigate the robustness of radiomic features. We selected 527 papers based on the primary criterion that the papers had imaging parameters that affected the reproducibility of radiomic features extracted from computed tomography (CT) images. We compared the reported performance of these parameters along with IPF in the eligible studies. We then proceeded to divide our studies into three groups based on the type of their IPF: ( i ) scanner parameters, ( ii ) acquisition parameters and ( iii ) reconstruction parameters. Our review highlighted that the reconstruction algorithm was the most reproducible factor and shape along with intensity histogram (IH) were the most robust radiomic features against variation in imaging parameters. This review identified substantial inconsistencies related to the methodology and the reporting style of the reviewed studies such as type of study performed, the metrics used for robustness, the feature extraction techniques, the image perturbation factors, the reporting style and their outcome inclusion. Finally, we hope the IPFs and the methodology inconsistencies identified will aid the scientific community in conducting research in a way that is more reproducible and avoids the pitfalls of previous analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".