Dataset Information

Quality of Radiomics Research on Brain Metastasis: A Roadmap to Promote Clinical Translation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Our study aimed to evaluate the quality of radiomics studies on brain metastases based on the radiomics quality score (RQS), Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklist, and the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI) guidelines.

Materials and methods

PubMed MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for articles on radiomics for evaluating brain metastases, published until February 2021. Of the 572 articles, 29 relevant original research articles were included and evaluated according to the RQS, TRIPOD checklist, and IBSI guidelines.

Results

External validation was performed in only three studies (10.3%). The median RQS was 3.0 (range, -6 to 12), with a low basic adherence rate of 50.0%. The adherence rate was low in comparison to the "gold standard" (10.3%), stating the potential clinical utility (10.3%), performing the cut-off analysis (3.4%), reporting calibration statistics (6.9%), and providing open science and data (3.4%). None of the studies involved test-retest or phantom studies, prospective studies, or cost-effectiveness analyses. The overall rate of adherence to the TRIPOD checklist was 60.3% and low for reporting title (3.4%), blind assessment of outcome (0%), description of the handling of missing data (0%), and presentation of the full prediction model (0%). The majority of studies lacked pre-processing steps, with bias-field correction, isovoxel resampling, skull stripping, and gray-level discretization performed in only six (20.7%), nine (31.0%), four (3.8%), and four (13.8%) studies, respectively.

Conclusion

The overall scientific and reporting quality of radiomics studies on brain metastases published during the study period was insufficient. Radiomics studies should adhere to the RQS, TRIPOD, and IBSI guidelines to facilitate the translation of radiomics into the clinical field.

SUBMITTER: Park CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8743155 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies.MethodsWe conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated.ResultIn total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community.ConclusionIn this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers.Critical relevance statementA quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning.Key points• A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score ( https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html ) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community ( https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics ).

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate radiomics analysis in studies on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) using a radiomics quality score (RQS) system to establish a roadmap for further improvement in clinical use.Materials and methodsPubMed MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched using the terms 'cognitive impairment' or 'Alzheimer' or 'dementia' and 'radiomic' or 'texture' or 'radiogenomic' for articles published until March 2020. From 258 articles, 26 relevant original research articles were selected. Two neuroradiologists assessed the quality of the methodology according to the RQS. Adherence rates for the following six key domains were evaluated: image protocol and reproducibility, feature reduction and validation, biologic/clinical utility, performance index, high level of evidence, and open science.ResultsThe hippocampus was the most frequently analyzed (46.2%) anatomical structure. Of the 26 studies, 16 (61.5%) used an open source database (14 from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and 2 from Open Access Series of Imaging Studies). The mean RQS was 3.6 out of 36 (9.9%), and the basic adherence rate was 27.6%. Only one study (3.8%) performed external validation. The adherence rate was relatively high for reporting the imaging protocol (96.2%), multiple segmentation (76.9%), discrimination statistics (69.2%), and open science and data (65.4%) but low for conducting test-retest analysis (7.7%) and biologic correlation (3.8%). None of the studies stated potential clinical utility, conducted a phantom study, performed cut-off analysis or calibration statistics, was a prospective study, or conducted cost-effectiveness analysis, resulting in a low level of evidence.ConclusionThe quality of radiomics reporting in MCI and AD studies is suboptimal. Validation is necessary using external dataset, and improvements need to be made to feature reproducibility, feature selection, clinical utility, model performance index, and pursuits of a higher level of evidence.