MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393227005 · doi:10.1007/s11517-024-03071-6

Impact of harmonization on the reproducibility of MRI radiomic features when using different scanners, acquisition parameters, and image pre-processing techniques: a phantom study

2024· article· en· W4393227005 on OpenAlex
Ghasem Hajianfar, Seyyed Ali Hosseini, Sara Bagherieh, Mehrdad Oveisi, Isaac Shiri, Habib Zaidi

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical & Biological Engineering & Computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersUniversité de GenèveSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsReproducibilityImaging phantomBiomedical engineeringImage processingHuman physiologyMedical physicsArtificial intelligenceComputer visionComputer scienceNuclear medicinePattern recognition (psychology)MedicineImage (mathematics)MathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the impact of ComBat harmonization on the reproducibility of radiomic features extracted from magnetic resonance images (MRI) acquired on different scanners, using various data acquisition parameters and multiple image pre-processing techniques using a dedicated MRI phantom. Four scanners were used to acquire an MRI of a nonanatomic phantom as part of the TCIA RIDER database. In fast spin-echo inversion recovery (IR) sequences, several inversion durations were employed, including 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, and 3000 ms. In addition, a 3D fast spoiled gradient recalled echo (FSPGR) sequence was used to investigate several flip angles (FA): 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 degrees. Nineteen phantom compartments were manually segmented. Different approaches were used to pre-process each image: Bin discretization, Wavelet filter, Laplacian of Gaussian, logarithm, square, square root, and gradient. Overall, 92 first-, second-, and higher-order statistical radiomic features were extracted. ComBat harmonization was also applied to the extracted radiomic features. Finally, the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis's (KW) tests were implemented to assess the robustness of radiomic features. The number of non-significant features in the KW test ranged between 0-5 and 29-74 for various scanners, 31-91 and 37-92 for three times tests, 0-33 to 34-90 for FAs, and 3-68 to 65-89 for IRs before and after ComBat harmonization, with different image pre-processing techniques, respectively. The number of features with ICC over 90% ranged between 0-8 and 6-60 for various scanners, 11-75 and 17-80 for three times tests, 3-83 to 9-84 for FAs, and 3-49 to 3-63 for IRs before and after ComBat harmonization, with different image pre-processing techniques, respectively. The use of various scanners, IRs, and FAs has a great impact on radiomic features. However, the majority of scanner-robust features is also robust to IR and FA. Among the effective parameters in MR images, several tests in one scanner have a negligible impact on radiomic features. Different scanners and acquisition parameters using various image pre-processing might affect radiomic features to a large extent. ComBat harmonization might significantly impact the reproducibility of MRI radiomic features.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it