Paper detail

A multicenter study on radiomic features from T$_2$-weighted images of a customized MR pelvic phantom setting the basis for robust radiomic models in clinics

In this study we investigated the repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features extracted from MRI images and provide a workflow to identify robust features. 2D and 3D T$_2$-weighted images of a pelvic phantom were acquired on three scanners of two manufacturers and two magnetic field strengths. The repeatability and reproducibility of the radiomic features were assessed respectively by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), considering repeated acquisitions with or without phantom repositioning, and with different scanner/acquisition type, and acquisition parameters. The features showing ICC/CCC > 0.9 were selected, and their dependence on shape information (Spearman's $ρ$> 0.8) was analyzed. They were classified for their ability to distinguish textures, after shuffling voxel intensities. From 944 2D features, 79.9% to 96.4% showed excellent repeatability in fixed position across all scanners. Much lower range (11.2% to 85.4%) was obtained after phantom repositioning. 3D extraction did not improve repeatability performance. Excellent reproducibility between scanners was observed in 4.6% to 15.6% of the features, at fixed imaging parameters. 82.4% to 94.9% of features showed excellent agreement when extracted from images acquired with TEs 5 ms apart (values decreased when increasing TE intervals) and 90.7% of the features exhibited excellent reproducibility for changes in TR. 2.0% of non-shape features were identified as providing only shape information. This study demonstrates that radiomic features are affected by specific MRI protocols. The use of our radiomic pelvic phantom allowed to identify unreliable features for radiomic analysis on T$_2$-weighted images. This paper proposes a general workflow to identify repeatable, reproducible, and informative radiomic features, fundamental to ensure robustness of clinical studies.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access10 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.