Open-radiomics: a collection of standardized datasets and a technical protocol for reproducible radiomics machine learning pipelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As an important branch of machine learning pipelines in medical imaging, radiomics faces two major challenges namely reproducibility and accessibility. In this work, we introduce open-radiomics, a set of radiomics datasets along with a comprehensive radiomics pipeline based on our proposed technical protocol to investigate the effects of radiomics feature extraction on the reproducibility of the results. METHODS: We curated large-scale radiomics datasets based on three open-source datasets; BraTS 2020 for high-grade glioma (HGG) versus low-grade glioma (LGG) classification and survival analysis, BraTS 2023 for O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) classification, and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) survival analysis from the Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA). We used the BraTS 2020 open-source Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) dataset to demonstrate how our proposed technical protocol could be utilized in radiomics-based studies. The cohort includes 369 adult patients with brain tumors (76 LGG, and 293 HGG). Using PyRadiomics library for LGG vs. HGG classification, we created 288 radiomics datasets; the combinations of 4 MRI sequences, 3 binWidths, 6 image normalization methods, and 4 tumor subregions. We used Random Forest classifiers, and for each radiomics dataset, we repeated the training-validation-test (60%/20%/20%) experiment with different data splits and model random states 100 times (28,800 test results) and calculated the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Unlike binWidth and image normalization, the tumor subregion and imaging sequence significantly affected performance of the models. T1 contrast-enhanced sequence and the union of Necrotic and the non-enhancing tumor core subregions resulted in the highest AUROCs (average test AUROC 0.951, 95% confidence interval of (0.949, 0.952)). Although several settings and data splits (28 out of 28800) yielded test AUROC of 1, they were irreproducible. CONCLUSIONS: Our experiments demonstrate the sources of variability in radiomics pipelines (e.g., tumor subregion) can have a significant impact on the results, which may lead to superficial perfect performances that are irreproducible. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".