从4DCT运动补偿重建中提取放射组学的适用性。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Chelsea A. H. Sargeant, Angela Davey, Alan McWilliam
{"title":"从4DCT运动补偿重建中提取放射组学的适用性。","authors":"Chelsea A. H. Sargeant,&nbsp;Angela Davey,&nbsp;Alan McWilliam","doi":"10.1002/acm2.70254","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The most appropriate 4DCT image for radiomics analysis remains uncertain, with options including individual respiratory phases and motion-compensated (MC) reconstructions. This study compares radiomic features derived from MC reconstructions and patient-specific, 4D phases, evaluating their influence on feature selection, robustness to registration algorithms and implications for radiomics analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study included 223 NSCLC patients. MC reconstructions (MC<sub>mean</sub> and MC<sub>median</sub>) were generated using three different registration algorithms and compared to a patient-specific optimal 4D phase (TOp), defined as the phase where radiomic feature values exhibited the smallest variability. Ninety-three features, extracted from the tumor region, underwent unsupervised selection to assess how image type influenced feature selection and redundancy. The impact of image type on distant failure prediction was evaluated using bootstrapped univariable Cox regression (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) and multivariable modeling. Model performance was assessed across 500 bootstrap resamples, with feature selection frequency, concordance index (CI), and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) recorded.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Over 60% of selected features differed between 4D phases and MC reconstructions, indicating image type influences feature selection. The proportion of remaining features varied: 11.8% (TOp), 15.1% (MC<sub>mean</sub>), and 12.9% (MC<sub>median</sub>). The single-phase model, TOp, achieved a CI of 0.72 [0.64–0.77] and an AIC of 267.53, but did not demonstrate clear superiority over MC-based models. Both MC<sub>median</sub> and TOp showed modest improvements over the clinical model, suggesting both image types offer comparable prognostic potential. MC reconstructions were largely robust across registration algorithms, but MC<sub>mean</sub> and MC<sub>median</sub> reconstructions should not be used interchangeably.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study highlights differences in radiomic feature selection and predictive performance between MC reconstructions and individual 4DCT phases. MC reconstructions were a viable alternative, demonstrating robustness across registration algorithms. Both approaches can be integrated into radiomics pipelines, but image type selection should be carefully considered.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14989,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","volume":"26 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The suitability of radiomics extracted from 4DCT motion-compensated reconstruction\",\"authors\":\"Chelsea A. H. Sargeant,&nbsp;Angela Davey,&nbsp;Alan McWilliam\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acm2.70254\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>The most appropriate 4DCT image for radiomics analysis remains uncertain, with options including individual respiratory phases and motion-compensated (MC) reconstructions. This study compares radiomic features derived from MC reconstructions and patient-specific, 4D phases, evaluating their influence on feature selection, robustness to registration algorithms and implications for radiomics analysis.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study included 223 NSCLC patients. MC reconstructions (MC<sub>mean</sub> and MC<sub>median</sub>) were generated using three different registration algorithms and compared to a patient-specific optimal 4D phase (TOp), defined as the phase where radiomic feature values exhibited the smallest variability. Ninety-three features, extracted from the tumor region, underwent unsupervised selection to assess how image type influenced feature selection and redundancy. The impact of image type on distant failure prediction was evaluated using bootstrapped univariable Cox regression (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05) and multivariable modeling. Model performance was assessed across 500 bootstrap resamples, with feature selection frequency, concordance index (CI), and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) recorded.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Over 60% of selected features differed between 4D phases and MC reconstructions, indicating image type influences feature selection. The proportion of remaining features varied: 11.8% (TOp), 15.1% (MC<sub>mean</sub>), and 12.9% (MC<sub>median</sub>). The single-phase model, TOp, achieved a CI of 0.72 [0.64–0.77] and an AIC of 267.53, but did not demonstrate clear superiority over MC-based models. Both MC<sub>median</sub> and TOp showed modest improvements over the clinical model, suggesting both image types offer comparable prognostic potential. MC reconstructions were largely robust across registration algorithms, but MC<sub>mean</sub> and MC<sub>median</sub> reconstructions should not be used interchangeably.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study highlights differences in radiomic feature selection and predictive performance between MC reconstructions and individual 4DCT phases. MC reconstructions were a viable alternative, demonstrating robustness across registration algorithms. Both approaches can be integrated into radiomics pipelines, but image type selection should be carefully considered.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"volume\":\"26 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479209/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70254\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acm2.70254","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:最适合放射组学分析的4DCT图像仍然不确定,包括个体呼吸期和运动补偿(MC)重建。本研究比较了MC重建和患者特异性4D期获得的放射组学特征,评估了它们对特征选择的影响、对配准算法的鲁棒性以及对放射组学分析的影响。方法:本研究纳入223例非小细胞肺癌患者。使用三种不同的配准算法生成MC重建(MCmean和MCmedian),并与患者特定的最佳4D期(TOp)进行比较,TOp定义为放射学特征值表现出最小变异性的阶段。从肿瘤区域提取93个特征,进行无监督选择,以评估图像类型如何影响特征选择和冗余。使用自举单变量Cox回归评估图像类型对远程故障预测的影响(p)结果:超过60%的选择特征在4D阶段和MC重建之间存在差异,表明图像类型影响特征选择。剩余特征的比例不同:11.8% (TOp), 15.1% (MCmean)和12.9% (MCmedian)。单相模型TOp的CI为0.72 [0.64-0.77],AIC为267.53,但与基于mc的模型相比并没有明显的优势。与临床模型相比,MCmedian和TOp显示出适度的改善,这表明两种图像类型具有相当的预后潜力。MC重建在配准算法中具有很大的鲁棒性,但MCmean和MCmedian重建不应互换使用。结论:本研究强调了MC重建与单个4DCT阶段在放射学特征选择和预测性能方面的差异。MC重建是一种可行的替代方案,展示了跨配准算法的鲁棒性。这两种方法都可以集成到放射组学管道中,但图像类型选择需要仔细考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The suitability of radiomics extracted from 4DCT motion-compensated reconstruction

The suitability of radiomics extracted from 4DCT motion-compensated reconstruction

Purpose

The most appropriate 4DCT image for radiomics analysis remains uncertain, with options including individual respiratory phases and motion-compensated (MC) reconstructions. This study compares radiomic features derived from MC reconstructions and patient-specific, 4D phases, evaluating their influence on feature selection, robustness to registration algorithms and implications for radiomics analysis.

Methods

This study included 223 NSCLC patients. MC reconstructions (MCmean and MCmedian) were generated using three different registration algorithms and compared to a patient-specific optimal 4D phase (TOp), defined as the phase where radiomic feature values exhibited the smallest variability. Ninety-three features, extracted from the tumor region, underwent unsupervised selection to assess how image type influenced feature selection and redundancy. The impact of image type on distant failure prediction was evaluated using bootstrapped univariable Cox regression (p < 0.05) and multivariable modeling. Model performance was assessed across 500 bootstrap resamples, with feature selection frequency, concordance index (CI), and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) recorded.

Results

Over 60% of selected features differed between 4D phases and MC reconstructions, indicating image type influences feature selection. The proportion of remaining features varied: 11.8% (TOp), 15.1% (MCmean), and 12.9% (MCmedian). The single-phase model, TOp, achieved a CI of 0.72 [0.64–0.77] and an AIC of 267.53, but did not demonstrate clear superiority over MC-based models. Both MCmedian and TOp showed modest improvements over the clinical model, suggesting both image types offer comparable prognostic potential. MC reconstructions were largely robust across registration algorithms, but MCmean and MCmedian reconstructions should not be used interchangeably.

Conclusion

This study highlights differences in radiomic feature selection and predictive performance between MC reconstructions and individual 4DCT phases. MC reconstructions were a viable alternative, demonstrating robustness across registration algorithms. Both approaches can be integrated into radiomics pipelines, but image type selection should be carefully considered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
19.00%
发文量
331
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics is an international Open Access publication dedicated to clinical medical physics. JACMP welcomes original contributions dealing with all aspects of medical physics from scientists working in the clinical medical physics around the world. JACMP accepts only online submission. JACMP will publish: -Original Contributions: Peer-reviewed, investigations that represent new and significant contributions to the field. Recommended word count: up to 7500. -Review Articles: Reviews of major areas or sub-areas in the field of clinical medical physics. These articles may be of any length and are peer reviewed. -Technical Notes: These should be no longer than 3000 words, including key references. -Letters to the Editor: Comments on papers published in JACMP or on any other matters of interest to clinical medical physics. These should not be more than 1250 (including the literature) and their publication is only based on the decision of the editor, who occasionally asks experts on the merit of the contents. -Book Reviews: The editorial office solicits Book Reviews. -Announcements of Forthcoming Meetings: The Editor may provide notice of forthcoming meetings, course offerings, and other events relevant to clinical medical physics. -Parallel Opposed Editorial: We welcome topics relevant to clinical practice and medical physics profession. The contents can be controversial debate or opposed aspects of an issue. One author argues for the position and the other against. Each side of the debate contains an opening statement up to 800 words, followed by a rebuttal up to 500 words. Readers interested in participating in this series should contact the moderator with a proposed title and a short description of the topic
×
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