The impact of the variation of imaging parameters on the robustness of Computed Tomography radiomic features: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of radiomics is at the forefront of personalized medicine. However, there is concern that high variation in imaging parameters will impact robustness of radiomic features and subsequently the performance of the predictive models built upon them. Therefore, our review aims to evaluate the impact of imaging parameters on the robustness of radiomic features. We also provide insights into the validity and discrepancy of different methodologies applied to investigate the robustness of radiomic features. We selected 47 papers based on our predefined inclusion criteria and grouped these papers by the imaging parameter under investigation: (i) scanner parameters, (ii) acquisition parameters and (iii) reconstruction parameters. Our review highlighted that most of the imaging parameters are disruptive parameters, and shape along with First order statistics were reported as the most robust radiomic features against variation in imaging parameters. This review identified inconsistencies related to the methodology of the reviewed studies such as the metrics used for robustness, the feature extraction techniques, the reporting style, and their outcome inclusion. We hope this review 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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".