An Informative Review of Radiomics Studies on Cancer Imaging: The Main Findings, Challenges and Limitations of the Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this informative review was to investigate the application of radiomics in cancer imaging and to summarize the results of recent studies to support oncological imaging with particular attention to breast cancer, rectal cancer and primitive and secondary liver cancer. This review also aims to provide the main findings, challenges and limitations of the current methodologies. Clinical studies published in the last four years (2019-2022) were included in this review. Among the 19 studies analyzed, none assessed the differences between scanners and vendor-dependent characteristics, collected images of individuals at additional points in time, performed calibration statistics, represented a prospective study performed and registered in a study database, conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis, reported on the cost-effectiveness of the clinical application, or performed multivariable analysis with also non-radiomics features. Seven studies reached a high radiomic quality score (RQS), and seventeen earned additional points by using validation steps considering two datasets from two distinct institutes and open science and data domains (radiomics features calculated on a set of representative ROIs are open source). The potential of radiomics is increasingly establishing itself, even if there are still several aspects to be evaluated before the passage of radiomics into routine clinical practice. There are several challenges, including the need for standardization across all stages of the workflow and the potential for cross-site validation using real-world heterogeneous datasets. Moreover, multiple centers and prospective radiomics studies with more samples that add inter-scanner differences and vendor-dependent characteristics will be needed in the future, as well as the collecting of images of individuals at additional time points, the reporting of calibration statistics and the performing of prospective studies registered in a study database.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".