Radiomics quality score in renal masses: a systematic assessment on current literature.

A. Azadikhah, B. Varghese, X. Lei, Chloe Martin-King, S. Cen, V. Duddalwar
{"title":"Radiomics quality score in renal masses: a systematic assessment on current literature.","authors":"A. Azadikhah, B. Varghese, X. Lei, Chloe Martin-King, S. Cen, V. Duddalwar","doi":"10.1259/bjr.20211211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nTo perform a systematic assessment and analyze the quality of radiomics methodology in current literature in the evaluation of renal masses using the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) approach.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe systematically reviewed recent radiomics literature in renal masses published in PubMed, EMBASE, Elsevier, and Web of Science. Two reviewers blinded by each other's scores evaluated the quality of radiomics methodology in studies published from 2015 to August 2021 using the RQS approach. Owing to the diversity in the imaging modalities and radiomics applications a meta-analysis could not be performed.\n\n\nRESULTS\nBased on our inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 87 published studies were included in our study. The highest RQS was noted in three categories: reporting of clinical utility, gold standard, and feature reduction. The average RQS of the two reviewers ranged from 5 ≤ RQS≤19, with the maximum attainable RQS being 36. Very few (7/87 i.e., 8%) studies received an average RQS that ranged from 17 < RQS≤19, which represents studies with the highest RQS in our study. Many (39/87 i.e., 45%) studies received an average RQS that ranged from 13 < RQS≤15. No significant inter reviewer scoring differences were observed.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nWe report that the overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies in renal masses is suboptimal, and subsequent studies should bolster current deficiencies to improve reporting of radiomics methodologies.\n\n\nADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE\nThe RQS approach is a meaningful quantitative scoring system to assess radiomics methodology quality and supports a comprehensive evaluation of the radiomics approach before its incorporation into clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":226783,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of radiology","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To perform a systematic assessment and analyze the quality of radiomics methodology in current literature in the evaluation of renal masses using the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) approach. METHODS We systematically reviewed recent radiomics literature in renal masses published in PubMed, EMBASE, Elsevier, and Web of Science. Two reviewers blinded by each other's scores evaluated the quality of radiomics methodology in studies published from 2015 to August 2021 using the RQS approach. Owing to the diversity in the imaging modalities and radiomics applications a meta-analysis could not be performed. RESULTS Based on our inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 87 published studies were included in our study. The highest RQS was noted in three categories: reporting of clinical utility, gold standard, and feature reduction. The average RQS of the two reviewers ranged from 5 ≤ RQS≤19, with the maximum attainable RQS being 36. Very few (7/87 i.e., 8%) studies received an average RQS that ranged from 17 < RQS≤19, which represents studies with the highest RQS in our study. Many (39/87 i.e., 45%) studies received an average RQS that ranged from 13 < RQS≤15. No significant inter reviewer scoring differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS We report that the overall scientific quality and reporting of radiomics studies in renal masses is suboptimal, and subsequent studies should bolster current deficiencies to improve reporting of radiomics methodologies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE The RQS approach is a meaningful quantitative scoring system to assess radiomics methodology quality and supports a comprehensive evaluation of the radiomics approach before its incorporation into clinical practice.
肾肿块放射组学质量评分:对现有文献的系统评估。
目的对现有文献中采用放射组学质量评分(RQS)评价肾肿块的放射组学方法进行系统评价和分析。方法我们系统地回顾了最近在PubMed、EMBASE、Elsevier和Web of Science上发表的有关肾脏肿块的放射组学文献。在2015年至2021年8月期间发表的研究中,两名审稿人使用RQS方法评估了放射组学方法的质量。由于成像方式和放射组学应用的多样性,不能进行荟萃分析。结果根据我们的纳入/排除标准,共有87篇已发表的研究被纳入我们的研究。最高RQS在三个类别中被注意到:临床效用报告、金标准和特征减少。两位审稿人的平均RQS为5≤RQS≤19,最高可达RQS为36。很少有研究(7/87,即8%)的平均RQS在17 < RQS≤19之间,这是我们研究中RQS最高的研究。许多研究(39/87,即45%)的平均RQS在13 < RQS≤15之间。审稿人之间的评分没有显著差异。结论:肾包块放射组学研究的总体科学质量和报告不理想,后续研究应弥补目前的不足,以改善放射组学方法的报告。RQS方法是一种有意义的定量评分系统,用于评估放射组学方法的质量,并支持在放射组学方法纳入临床实践之前对其进行全面评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信