A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks?
Objectives We aimed to systematically evaluate the prognostic prediction accuracy of radiomics features extracted from pre-treatment imaging in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods Radiomics literature on overall survival (OS) prediction of PDAC were all included in this sy...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2022-12, Vol.32 (12), p.8443-8452 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 8452 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 8443 |
container_title | European radiology |
container_volume | 32 |
creator | Gao, Yuhan Cheng, Sihang Zhu, Liang Wang, Qin Deng, Wenyi Sun, Zhaoyong Wang, Shitian Xue, Huadan |
description | Objectives
We aimed to systematically evaluate the prognostic prediction accuracy of radiomics features extracted from pre-treatment imaging in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
Methods
Radiomics literature on overall survival (OS) prediction of PDAC were all included in this systematic review. A further meta-analysis was performed on the effect size of first-order entropy. Methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed by the radiomics quality score (RQS) and prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).
Results
Twenty-three studies were finally identified in this review. Two (8.7%) studies compared prognosis prediction ability between radiomics model and TNM staging model by C-index, and both showed a better performance of the radiomics. Twenty-one (91.3%) studies reported significant predictive values of radiomics features. Nine (39.1%) studies were included in the meta-analysis, and it showed a significant correlation between first-order entropy and OS (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.18–2.34). RQS assessment revealed validation was only performed in 5 (21.7%) studies on internal datasets and 2 (8.7%) studies on external datasets. PROBAST showed that 22 (95.7%) studies have a high risk of bias in participants because of the retrospective study design.
Conclusion
First-order entropy was significantly associated with OS and might improve the accuracy of PDAC prognosis prediction. Existing studies were poorly validated, and it should be noted in future studies. Modification of PROBAST for radiomics studies is necessary since the strict requirements of prospective study design may not be applicable to the demand for a large sample size in the model construction stage.
Key Points
• Radiomics based on the primary lesion holds great potential for prognosis prediction. First-order entropy was significantly associated with the overall survival of PDAC and might improve the accuracy of current PDAC prognosis prediction.
• We strongly recommend that at least an internal validation should be conducted in any radiomics study. Attention should be paid to the complex relationships between radiomics features.
• Due to the close relationship between radiomics and big data, the strict requirement of prospective study design in PROABST may not be appropriate for radiomics studies. A balance between study types and sample sizes for radiomics studies needs to be found in the model construction stage. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2696860298</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2740744077</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c305t-f5b35ffb7afeb2a606cc6f8d7a3b76bf38d09e56700870ec6cd4257334b5dfac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EoqXtH-BQWeLCJTCxEzvpBVVVC0iVuMDZcpxx6zaJtx5v0d746Xi7LUUcONgeab73xqPH2NsaPtQA-iMBSAkVCFFB12_vF2y_bqSoauial3_Ve-wN0Q0A9HWjX7M92fbQqLrbZ79OOW0o42xzcDzhfcCfPHq-SvFqiRSoVDgGl8M98hQn3DaTHUOcgyMeFr6yi0v4IHelxHTCrzFj0eOCIW_4bNMtJuIxccqFo4LaiecU3C19OmSvvJ0Ijx7fA_bj4vz72Zfq8tvnr2enl5WT0ObKt4NsvR-09TgIq0A5p3w3aisHrQYvuxF6bJUG6DSgU25sRKulbIZ29NbJA_Z-51s2u1sjZTMHcjhNdsG4JiNUrzoFou8K-u4f9Cau01J-Z4RuQDfl6EKJHeVSJErozSqFsuvG1GC2-ZhdPqbkYx7yMVBEx4_W62HG8Y_kKZACyB1ApbVcYXqe_R_b3-Ponco</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2740744077</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Gao, Yuhan ; Cheng, Sihang ; Zhu, Liang ; Wang, Qin ; Deng, Wenyi ; Sun, Zhaoyong ; Wang, Shitian ; Xue, Huadan</creator><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yuhan ; Cheng, Sihang ; Zhu, Liang ; Wang, Qin ; Deng, Wenyi ; Sun, Zhaoyong ; Wang, Shitian ; Xue, Huadan</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
We aimed to systematically evaluate the prognostic prediction accuracy of radiomics features extracted from pre-treatment imaging in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
Methods
Radiomics literature on overall survival (OS) prediction of PDAC were all included in this systematic review. A further meta-analysis was performed on the effect size of first-order entropy. Methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed by the radiomics quality score (RQS) and prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).
Results
Twenty-three studies were finally identified in this review. Two (8.7%) studies compared prognosis prediction ability between radiomics model and TNM staging model by C-index, and both showed a better performance of the radiomics. Twenty-one (91.3%) studies reported significant predictive values of radiomics features. Nine (39.1%) studies were included in the meta-analysis, and it showed a significant correlation between first-order entropy and OS (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.18–2.34). RQS assessment revealed validation was only performed in 5 (21.7%) studies on internal datasets and 2 (8.7%) studies on external datasets. PROBAST showed that 22 (95.7%) studies have a high risk of bias in participants because of the retrospective study design.
Conclusion
First-order entropy was significantly associated with OS and might improve the accuracy of PDAC prognosis prediction. Existing studies were poorly validated, and it should be noted in future studies. Modification of PROBAST for radiomics studies is necessary since the strict requirements of prospective study design may not be applicable to the demand for a large sample size in the model construction stage.
Key Points
• Radiomics based on the primary lesion holds great potential for prognosis prediction. First-order entropy was significantly associated with the overall survival of PDAC and might improve the accuracy of current PDAC prognosis prediction.
• We strongly recommend that at least an internal validation should be conducted in any radiomics study. Attention should be paid to the complex relationships between radiomics features.
• Due to the close relationship between radiomics and big data, the strict requirement of prospective study design in PROABST may not be appropriate for radiomics studies. A balance between study types and sample sizes for radiomics studies needs to be found in the model construction stage.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35904618</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Adenocarcinoma ; Bias ; Biomarkers ; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging ; Datasets ; Design ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Entropy ; Feature extraction ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Medical prognosis ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Neuroradiology ; Oncology ; Pancreatic cancer ; Pancreatic Neoplasms ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prediction models ; Prognosis ; Prospective Studies ; Radiology ; Radiomics ; Retrospective Studies ; Statistical prediction ; Survival ; Systematic review ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2022-12, Vol.32 (12), p.8443-8452</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022</rights><rights>2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.</rights><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2022.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c305t-f5b35ffb7afeb2a606cc6f8d7a3b76bf38d09e56700870ec6cd4257334b5dfac3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c305t-f5b35ffb7afeb2a606cc6f8d7a3b76bf38d09e56700870ec6cd4257334b5dfac3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4278-2165</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35904618$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yuhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Sihang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Qin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Wenyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Zhaoyong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shitian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xue, Huadan</creatorcontrib><title>A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks?</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objectives
We aimed to systematically evaluate the prognostic prediction accuracy of radiomics features extracted from pre-treatment imaging in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
Methods
Radiomics literature on overall survival (OS) prediction of PDAC were all included in this systematic review. A further meta-analysis was performed on the effect size of first-order entropy. Methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed by the radiomics quality score (RQS) and prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).
Results
Twenty-three studies were finally identified in this review. Two (8.7%) studies compared prognosis prediction ability between radiomics model and TNM staging model by C-index, and both showed a better performance of the radiomics. Twenty-one (91.3%) studies reported significant predictive values of radiomics features. Nine (39.1%) studies were included in the meta-analysis, and it showed a significant correlation between first-order entropy and OS (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.18–2.34). RQS assessment revealed validation was only performed in 5 (21.7%) studies on internal datasets and 2 (8.7%) studies on external datasets. PROBAST showed that 22 (95.7%) studies have a high risk of bias in participants because of the retrospective study design.
Conclusion
First-order entropy was significantly associated with OS and might improve the accuracy of PDAC prognosis prediction. Existing studies were poorly validated, and it should be noted in future studies. Modification of PROBAST for radiomics studies is necessary since the strict requirements of prospective study design may not be applicable to the demand for a large sample size in the model construction stage.
Key Points
• Radiomics based on the primary lesion holds great potential for prognosis prediction. First-order entropy was significantly associated with the overall survival of PDAC and might improve the accuracy of current PDAC prognosis prediction.
• We strongly recommend that at least an internal validation should be conducted in any radiomics study. Attention should be paid to the complex relationships between radiomics features.
• Due to the close relationship between radiomics and big data, the strict requirement of prospective study design in PROABST may not be appropriate for radiomics studies. A balance between study types and sample sizes for radiomics studies needs to be found in the model construction stage.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Adenocarcinoma</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biomarkers</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Entropy</subject><subject>Feature extraction</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Pancreatic cancer</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Prognosis</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiomics</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistical prediction</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhS0EoqXtH-BQWeLCJTCxEzvpBVVVC0iVuMDZcpxx6zaJtx5v0d746Xi7LUUcONgeab73xqPH2NsaPtQA-iMBSAkVCFFB12_vF2y_bqSoauial3_Ve-wN0Q0A9HWjX7M92fbQqLrbZ79OOW0o42xzcDzhfcCfPHq-SvFqiRSoVDgGl8M98hQn3DaTHUOcgyMeFr6yi0v4IHelxHTCrzFj0eOCIW_4bNMtJuIxccqFo4LaiecU3C19OmSvvJ0Ijx7fA_bj4vz72Zfq8tvnr2enl5WT0ObKt4NsvR-09TgIq0A5p3w3aisHrQYvuxF6bJUG6DSgU25sRKulbIZ29NbJA_Z-51s2u1sjZTMHcjhNdsG4JiNUrzoFou8K-u4f9Cau01J-Z4RuQDfl6EKJHeVSJErozSqFsuvG1GC2-ZhdPqbkYx7yMVBEx4_W62HG8Y_kKZACyB1ApbVcYXqe_R_b3-Ponco</recordid><startdate>20221201</startdate><enddate>20221201</enddate><creator>Gao, Yuhan</creator><creator>Cheng, Sihang</creator><creator>Zhu, Liang</creator><creator>Wang, Qin</creator><creator>Deng, Wenyi</creator><creator>Sun, Zhaoyong</creator><creator>Wang, Shitian</creator><creator>Xue, Huadan</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4278-2165</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221201</creationdate><title>A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks?</title><author>Gao, Yuhan ; Cheng, Sihang ; Zhu, Liang ; Wang, Qin ; Deng, Wenyi ; Sun, Zhaoyong ; Wang, Shitian ; Xue, Huadan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c305t-f5b35ffb7afeb2a606cc6f8d7a3b76bf38d09e56700870ec6cd4257334b5dfac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Adenocarcinoma</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biomarkers</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Entropy</topic><topic>Feature extraction</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Pancreatic cancer</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Prognosis</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiomics</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistical prediction</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yuhan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Sihang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Qin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deng, Wenyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Zhaoyong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Shitian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xue, Huadan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gao, Yuhan</au><au>Cheng, Sihang</au><au>Zhu, Liang</au><au>Wang, Qin</au><au>Deng, Wenyi</au><au>Sun, Zhaoyong</au><au>Wang, Shitian</au><au>Xue, Huadan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks?</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2022-12-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>8443</spage><epage>8452</epage><pages>8443-8452</pages><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objectives
We aimed to systematically evaluate the prognostic prediction accuracy of radiomics features extracted from pre-treatment imaging in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).
Methods
Radiomics literature on overall survival (OS) prediction of PDAC were all included in this systematic review. A further meta-analysis was performed on the effect size of first-order entropy. Methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies were assessed by the radiomics quality score (RQS) and prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).
Results
Twenty-three studies were finally identified in this review. Two (8.7%) studies compared prognosis prediction ability between radiomics model and TNM staging model by C-index, and both showed a better performance of the radiomics. Twenty-one (91.3%) studies reported significant predictive values of radiomics features. Nine (39.1%) studies were included in the meta-analysis, and it showed a significant correlation between first-order entropy and OS (HR 1.66, 95%CI 1.18–2.34). RQS assessment revealed validation was only performed in 5 (21.7%) studies on internal datasets and 2 (8.7%) studies on external datasets. PROBAST showed that 22 (95.7%) studies have a high risk of bias in participants because of the retrospective study design.
Conclusion
First-order entropy was significantly associated with OS and might improve the accuracy of PDAC prognosis prediction. Existing studies were poorly validated, and it should be noted in future studies. Modification of PROBAST for radiomics studies is necessary since the strict requirements of prospective study design may not be applicable to the demand for a large sample size in the model construction stage.
Key Points
• Radiomics based on the primary lesion holds great potential for prognosis prediction. First-order entropy was significantly associated with the overall survival of PDAC and might improve the accuracy of current PDAC prognosis prediction.
• We strongly recommend that at least an internal validation should be conducted in any radiomics study. Attention should be paid to the complex relationships between radiomics features.
• Due to the close relationship between radiomics and big data, the strict requirement of prospective study design in PROABST may not be appropriate for radiomics studies. A balance between study types and sample sizes for radiomics studies needs to be found in the model construction stage.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>35904618</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4278-2165</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1432-1084 |
ispartof | European radiology, 2022-12, Vol.32 (12), p.8443-8452 |
issn | 1432-1084 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2696860298 |
source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Accuracy Adenocarcinoma Bias Biomarkers Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal - diagnostic imaging Datasets Design Diagnostic Radiology Entropy Feature extraction Heterogeneity Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Medical prognosis Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Neuroradiology Oncology Pancreatic cancer Pancreatic Neoplasms Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Prediction models Prognosis Prospective Studies Radiology Radiomics Retrospective Studies Statistical prediction Survival Systematic review Ultrasound |
title | A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-29T03%3A52%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20systematic%20review%20of%20prognosis%20predictive%20role%20of%20radiomics%20in%20pancreatic%20cancer:%20heterogeneity%20markers%20or%20statistical%20tricks?&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Gao,%20Yuhan&rft.date=2022-12-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=8443&rft.epage=8452&rft.pages=8443-8452&rft.issn=1432-1084&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2740744077%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2740744077&rft_id=info:pmid/35904618&rfr_iscdi=true |