• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.77-88
• /
• 2022

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.

• Korean Journal of Radiology
• /
• 제21권12호
• /
• pp.1345-1354
• /
• 2020

Objective: To 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 Methods: PubMed 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: The 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.