{"title":"行动中的 GEP-NETs 辐射组学:对应用和质量评估的系统审查","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Purpose</h3> <p>To provide a comprehensive overview of the applications and quality of radiomics studies in GEP-NETs.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched until 2023. Studies that extracted qualitative radiomics features of GEP-NETs were included. Radiomics quality score (RQS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Changes in study quality were analyzed by grouping studies into three categories based on the year of publication. Correlation of impact factor (IF), CiteScore, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and RQS were tested by spearman correlation analysis.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>A total of 64 studies were included, focusing on aggressive behavior prediction in tumors (<em>n</em> = 34), differentiation of GEP-NETs from other lesions (<em>n</em> = 18), and prognosis or treatment response prediction (<em>n</em> = 13). Three RQS criteria met most frequently in studies were discrimination statistics, discussing clinical utility and well-documented image protocol. The three RQS criteria met least frequently were prospective design, multiple imaging time points, open data. As time progressed, the 2022–2023 group achieved significantly higher RQS scores compared to the previous groups. IF and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.29, <em>p</em> = 0.024), CiteScore and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.22, <em>p</em> = 0.085), SJR and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.28, <em>p</em> = 0.028) were all weakly associated.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Few studies focused on prognosis or treatment response prediction, indicating potential for future research. While overall improvements have been made, the majority of studies still exhibit low quality. Optimizing dataset quality, model assessment, and reporting of the radiomics workflow remains necessary. The three commonly used journal evaluation metrics may not accurately reflect the quality of a radiomics study.</p> </span>","PeriodicalId":48600,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Imaging","volume":"147 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"GEP-NETs radiomics in action: a systematical review of applications and quality assessment\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Abstract</h3> <span> <h3>Purpose</h3> <p>To provide a comprehensive overview of the applications and quality of radiomics studies in GEP-NETs.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Methods</h3> <p>Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched until 2023. Studies that extracted qualitative radiomics features of GEP-NETs were included. Radiomics quality score (RQS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Changes in study quality were analyzed by grouping studies into three categories based on the year of publication. Correlation of impact factor (IF), CiteScore, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and RQS were tested by spearman correlation analysis.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Results</h3> <p>A total of 64 studies were included, focusing on aggressive behavior prediction in tumors (<em>n</em> = 34), differentiation of GEP-NETs from other lesions (<em>n</em> = 18), and prognosis or treatment response prediction (<em>n</em> = 13). Three RQS criteria met most frequently in studies were discrimination statistics, discussing clinical utility and well-documented image protocol. The three RQS criteria met least frequently were prospective design, multiple imaging time points, open data. As time progressed, the 2022–2023 group achieved significantly higher RQS scores compared to the previous groups. IF and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.29, <em>p</em> = 0.024), CiteScore and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.22, <em>p</em> = 0.085), SJR and RQS (<em>r</em> = 0.28, <em>p</em> = 0.028) were all weakly associated.</p> </span> <span> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Few studies focused on prognosis or treatment response prediction, indicating potential for future research. While overall improvements have been made, the majority of studies still exhibit low quality. Optimizing dataset quality, model assessment, and reporting of the radiomics workflow remains necessary. The three commonly used journal evaluation metrics may not accurately reflect the quality of a radiomics study.</p> </span>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48600,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Translational Imaging\",\"volume\":\"147 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Translational Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40336-024-00617-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
GEP-NETs radiomics in action: a systematical review of applications and quality assessment
Abstract
Purpose
To provide a comprehensive overview of the applications and quality of radiomics studies in GEP-NETs.
Methods
Embase, Scopus, and PubMed were searched until 2023. Studies that extracted qualitative radiomics features of GEP-NETs were included. Radiomics quality score (RQS) was used to assess the quality of studies. Changes in study quality were analyzed by grouping studies into three categories based on the year of publication. Correlation of impact factor (IF), CiteScore, Scientific Journal Rankings (SJR) and RQS were tested by spearman correlation analysis.
Results
A total of 64 studies were included, focusing on aggressive behavior prediction in tumors (n = 34), differentiation of GEP-NETs from other lesions (n = 18), and prognosis or treatment response prediction (n = 13). Three RQS criteria met most frequently in studies were discrimination statistics, discussing clinical utility and well-documented image protocol. The three RQS criteria met least frequently were prospective design, multiple imaging time points, open data. As time progressed, the 2022–2023 group achieved significantly higher RQS scores compared to the previous groups. IF and RQS (r = 0.29, p = 0.024), CiteScore and RQS (r = 0.22, p = 0.085), SJR and RQS (r = 0.28, p = 0.028) were all weakly associated.
Conclusion
Few studies focused on prognosis or treatment response prediction, indicating potential for future research. While overall improvements have been made, the majority of studies still exhibit low quality. Optimizing dataset quality, model assessment, and reporting of the radiomics workflow remains necessary. The three commonly used journal evaluation metrics may not accurately reflect the quality of a radiomics study.
期刊介绍:
Clinical and Translational Imaging is an international journal that publishes timely, up-to-date summaries on clinical practice and translational research and clinical applications of approved and experimental radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Coverage includes such topics as advanced preclinical evidence in the fields of physics, dosimetry, radiation biology and radiopharmacy with relevance to applications in human subjects. The journal benefits a readership of nuclear medicine practitioners and allied professionals involved in molecular imaging and therapy.