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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European radiology 2022-12, Vol.32 (12), p.8443-8452
Hauptverfasser: Gao, Yuhan, Cheng, Sihang, Zhu, Liang, Wang, Qin, Deng, Wenyi, Sun, Zhaoyong, Wang, Shitian, Xue, Huadan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; 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