Evaluating the impact of the Radiomics Quality Score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11341-y
Nathaniel Barry, Jake Kendrick, Kaylee Molin, Suning Li, Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Ghulam M Hassan, Jason Dowling, Paul M Parizel, Michael S Hofman, Martin A Ebert
{"title":"Evaluating the impact of the Radiomics Quality Score: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Nathaniel Barry, Jake Kendrick, Kaylee Molin, Suning Li, Pejman Rowshanfarzad, Ghulam M Hassan, Jason Dowling, Paul M Parizel, Michael S Hofman, Martin A Ebert","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11341-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the application of the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A search was conducted from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews which implemented the RQS. Identification of articles prior to 2022 was via a previously published review. Quality scores of individual radiomics papers, their associated criteria scores, and these scores from all readers were extracted. Errors in the application of RQS criteria were noted and corrected. The RQS of radiomics papers were matched with the publication date, imaging modality, and country, where available.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 130 systematic reviews were included, and individual quality scores 117/130 (90.0%), criteria scores 98/130 (75.4%), and multiple reader data 24/130 (18.5%) were extracted. 3258 quality scores were correlated with the radiomics study date of publication. Criteria scoring errors were discovered in 39/98 (39.8%) of articles. Overall mean RQS was 9.4 ± 6.4 (95% CI, 9.1-9.6) (26.1% ± 17.8% (25.3%-26.7%)). Quality scores were positively correlated with publication year (Pearson R = 0.32, p < 0.01) and significantly higher after publication of the RQS (year < 2018, 5.6 ± 6.1 (5.1-6.1); year ≥ 2018, 10.1 ± 6.1 (9.9-10.4); p < 0.01). Only 233/3258 (7.2%) scores were ≥ 50% of the maximum RQS. Quality scores were significantly different across imaging modalities (p < 0.01). Ten criteria were positively correlated with publication year, and one was negatively correlated.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Radiomics study adherence to the RQS is increasing with time, although a vast majority of studies are developmental and rarely provide a high level of evidence to justify the clinical translation of proposed models.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question What level of adherence to the Radiomics Quality Score have radiomics studies achieved to date, has it increased with time, and is it sufficient? Findings A meta-analysis of 3258 quality scores extracted from 130 review articles resulted in a mean score of 9.4 ± 6.4. Quality scores were positively correlated with time. Clinical relevance Although quality scores of radiomics studies have increased with time, many studies have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for clinical translation. As new appraisal tools emerge, the current role of the Radiomics Quality Score may change.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11341-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the application of the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS).

Materials and methods: A search was conducted from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews which implemented the RQS. Identification of articles prior to 2022 was via a previously published review. Quality scores of individual radiomics papers, their associated criteria scores, and these scores from all readers were extracted. Errors in the application of RQS criteria were noted and corrected. The RQS of radiomics papers were matched with the publication date, imaging modality, and country, where available.

Results: A total of 130 systematic reviews were included, and individual quality scores 117/130 (90.0%), criteria scores 98/130 (75.4%), and multiple reader data 24/130 (18.5%) were extracted. 3258 quality scores were correlated with the radiomics study date of publication. Criteria scoring errors were discovered in 39/98 (39.8%) of articles. Overall mean RQS was 9.4 ± 6.4 (95% CI, 9.1-9.6) (26.1% ± 17.8% (25.3%-26.7%)). Quality scores were positively correlated with publication year (Pearson R = 0.32, p < 0.01) and significantly higher after publication of the RQS (year < 2018, 5.6 ± 6.1 (5.1-6.1); year ≥ 2018, 10.1 ± 6.1 (9.9-10.4); p < 0.01). Only 233/3258 (7.2%) scores were ≥ 50% of the maximum RQS. Quality scores were significantly different across imaging modalities (p < 0.01). Ten criteria were positively correlated with publication year, and one was negatively correlated.

Conclusion: Radiomics study adherence to the RQS is increasing with time, although a vast majority of studies are developmental and rarely provide a high level of evidence to justify the clinical translation of proposed models.

Key points: Question What level of adherence to the Radiomics Quality Score have radiomics studies achieved to date, has it increased with time, and is it sufficient? Findings A meta-analysis of 3258 quality scores extracted from 130 review articles resulted in a mean score of 9.4 ± 6.4. Quality scores were positively correlated with time. Clinical relevance Although quality scores of radiomics studies have increased with time, many studies have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for clinical translation. As new appraisal tools emerge, the current role of the Radiomics Quality Score may change.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估放射组学质量评分的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:对放射组学质量评分(RQS)的应用进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。材料和方法:检索于2022年1月1日至2023年12月31日实施RQS的系统评价。鉴定2022年之前的文章是通过先前发表的综述。提取单个放射组学论文的质量分数,其相关标准分数,以及所有读者的这些分数。注意并纠正了RQS标准应用中的错误。放射组学论文的RQS与出版日期、成像方式和国家(如有)相匹配。结果:共纳入130篇系统评价,提取个体质量评分117/130(90.0%)、标准评分98/130(75.4%)、多读者数据24/130(18.5%)。3258个质量评分与放射组学研究发表日期相关。98篇文章中有39篇(39.8%)出现标准评分错误。总体的意思是rq 9.4±6.4 (95% CI, 9.1 - -9.6)(26.1%±17.8%(25.3% - -26.7%))。质量评分与发表年份呈正相关(Pearson R = 0.32, p)。结论:放射组学研究对RQS的依从性随着时间的推移而增加,尽管绝大多数研究是发展性的,很少提供高水平的证据来证明所提出模型的临床翻译。迄今为止,放射组学研究对放射组学质量评分的依从性达到了什么水平,是否随着时间的推移而增加,是否足够?从130篇综述文章中提取3258个质量评分进行meta分析,平均得分为9.4±6.4分。质量得分与时间呈正相关。尽管放射组学研究的质量评分随着时间的推移而提高,但许多研究尚未证明有足够的证据用于临床翻译。随着新的评估工具的出现,放射组学质量评分目前的作用可能会发生变化。
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 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
期刊最新文献
Dual-energy CT iodine concentration as a biomarker for immunotherapy treatment response in metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma patients. Thank you to our 2024 reviewers! AI-powered FDG-PET radiomics: a door to better Alzheimer's disease classification? Comparison of the diagnostic performance of non-contrast MR angiography and planar V/Q scintigraphy for pulmonary embolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdominopelvic imaging in the follow-up of testicular germ-cell tumors in adults: recommendations of the Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1