Radiomics of Renal Masses: Systematic Review of Reproducibility and Validation Strategies

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authoridKocak, Burak/0000-0002-7307-396X
dc.authoridAtes Kus, Ece/0000-0002-8175-4052
dc.contributor.authorKocak, Burak
dc.contributor.authorDurmaz, Emine Sebnem
dc.contributor.authorErdim, Cagri
dc.contributor.authorAtes, Ece
dc.contributor.authorKaya, Ozlem Korkmaz
dc.contributor.authorKilickesmez, Ozgur
dc.date.accessioned2025-03-23T19:27:12Z
dc.date.available2025-03-23T19:27:12Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.departmentSinop Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the radiomics literature on renal mass characterization in terms of reproducibility and validation strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS. With use of PubMed and Google Scholar, a systematic literature search was performed to identify original research papers assessing the value of radiomics in characterization of renal masses. The data items were extracted on the basis of three main categories: baseline study characteristics, radiomic feature reproducibility strategies, and statistical model validation strategies. RESULTS. After screening and application of the eligibility criteria, a total of 41 papers were included in the study. Almost one-half of the papers (19 [46%]) presented at least one reproducibility analysis. Segmentation variability (18 [44%]) was the main theme of the analyses, outnumbering image acquisition or processing (3 [7%]). No single paper considered slice selection bias. The most commonly used statistical tool for analysis was intraclass correlation coefficient (14 of 19 [74%]), with no consensus on the threshold or cutoff values. Approximately one-half of the papers (22 [54%]) used at least one validation method, with a predominance of internal validation techniques (20 [49%]). The most frequently used internal validation technique was k-fold cross-validation (12 [29%]). Independent or external validation was used in only three papers (7%). CONCLUSION. Workflow characteristics described in the radiomics literature about renal mass characterization are heterogeneous. To bring radiomics from a mere research area to clinical use, the field needs many more papers that consider the reproducibility of radiomic features and include independent or external validation in their workflow.
dc.identifier.doi10.2214/AJR.19.21709
dc.identifier.endpage136
dc.identifier.issn0361-803X
dc.identifier.issn1546-3141
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.pmid31613661
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage129
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21709
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11486/4863
dc.identifier.volume214
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000503833500029
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAmer Roentgen Ray Soc
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Roentgenology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250323
dc.subjectkidney
dc.subjectradiomics
dc.subjectreproducibility
dc.subjecttexture analysis
dc.subjectvalidation
dc.titleRadiomics of Renal Masses: Systematic Review of Reproducibility and Validation Strategies
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu