Enhancing the Clinical Utility of Radiomics: Addressing the Challenges of Repeatability and Reproducibility in CT and MRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiomics, which integrates the comprehensive characterization of imaging phenotypes with machine learning algorithms, is increasingly recognized for its potential in the diagnosis and prognosis of oncological conditions. However, the repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features are critical challenges that hinder their widespread clinical adoption. This review aims to address the paucity of discussion regarding the factors that influence the reproducibility and repeatability of radiomic features and their subsequent impact on the application of radiomic models. We provide a synthesis of the literature on the repeatability and reproducibility of CT/MR-based radiomic features, examining sources of variation, the number of reproducible features, and the availability of individual feature repeatability indices. We differentiate sources of variation into random effects, which are challenging to control but can be quantified through simulation methods such as perturbation, and biases, which arise from scanner variability and inter-reader differences and can significantly affect the generalizability of radiomic model performance in diverse settings. Four suggestions for repeatability and reproducibility studies are suggested: (1) detailed reporting of variation sources, (2) transparent disclosure of calculation parameters, (3) careful selection of suitable reliability indices, and (4) comprehensive reporting of reliability metrics. This review underscores the importance of random effects in feature selection and harmonizing biases between development and clinical application settings to facilitate the successful translation of radiomic models from research to clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".