Joint EANM/SNMMI guideline on radiomics in nuclear medicine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| 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 it