Minimising multi-centre radiomics variability through image normalisation: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics is an emerging technique for the quantification of imaging data that has recently shown great promise for deeper phenotyping of cardiovascular disease. Thus far, the technique has been mostly applied in single-centre studies. However, one of the main difficulties in multi-centre imaging studies is the inherent variability of image characteristics due to centre differences. In this paper, a comprehensive analysis of radiomics variability under several image- and feature-based normalisation techniques was conducted using a multi-centre cardiovascular magnetic resonance dataset. 218 subjects divided into healthy (n = 112) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 106, HCM) groups from five different centres were considered. First and second order texture radiomic features were extracted from three regions of interest, namely the left and right ventricular cavities and the left ventricular myocardium. Two methods were used to assess features' variability. First, feature distributions were compared across centres to obtain a distribution similarity index. Second, two classification tasks were proposed to assess: (1) the amount of centre-related information encoded in normalised features (centre identification) and (2) the generalisation ability for a classification model when trained on these features (healthy versus HCM classification). The results showed that the feature-based harmonisation technique ComBat is able to remove the variability introduced by centre information from radiomic features, at the expense of slightly degrading classification performance. Piecewise linear histogram matching normalisation gave features with greater generalisation ability for classification ( balanced accuracy in between 0.78 ± 0.08 and 0.79 ± 0.09). Models trained with features from images without normalisation showed the worst performance overall ( balanced accuracy in between 0.45 ± 0.28 and 0.60 ± 0.22). In conclusion, centre-related information removal did not imply good generalisation ability for classification.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".