Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Glioma | Original Article

An overview of meta-analyses on radiomics: more evidence is needed to support clinical translation

Authors: Jingyu Zhong, Junjie Lu, Guangcheng Zhang, Shiqi Mao, Haoda Chen, Qian Yin, Yangfan Hu, Yue Xing, Defang Ding, Xiang Ge, Huan Zhang, Weiwu Yao

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Objective

To conduct an overview of meta-analyses of radiomics studies assessing their study quality and evidence level.

Methods

A systematical search was updated via peer-reviewed electronic databases, preprint servers, and systematic review protocol registers until 15 November 2022. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of primary radiomics studies were included. Their reporting transparency, methodological quality, and risk of bias were assessed by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist, AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2) tool, and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool, respectively. The evidence level supporting the radiomics for clinical use was rated.

Results

We identified 44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses on radiomics research. The mean ± standard deviation of PRISMA adherence rate was 65 ± 9%. The AMSTAR-2 tool rated 5 and 39 systematic reviews as low and critically low confidence, respectively. The ROBIS assessment resulted low, unclear and high risk in 5, 11, and 28 systematic reviews, respectively. We reperformed 53 meta-analyses in 38 included systematic reviews. There were 3, 7, and 43 meta-analyses rated as convincing, highly suggestive, and weak levels of evidence, respectively. The convincing level of evidence was rated in (1) T2-FLAIR radiomics for IDH-mutant vs IDH-wide type differentiation in low-grade glioma, (2) CT radiomics for COVID-19 vs other viral pneumonia differentiation, and (3) MRI radiomics for high-grade glioma vs brain metastasis differentiation.

Conclusions

The systematic reviews on radiomics were with suboptimal quality. A limited number of radiomics approaches were supported by convincing level of evidence.

Clinical relevance statement

The evidence supporting the clinical application of radiomics are insufficient, calling for researches translating radiomics from an academic tool to a practicable adjunct towards clinical deployment.

Graphical Abstract

Available only for authorised users

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R et al (2012) Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer 48(4):441–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Tomaszewski MR, Gillies RJ (2021) The biological meaning of radiomic features. Radiology 298(3):505–516. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2021202553CrossRefPubMed

Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE (2016) Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278(2):563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169CrossRefPubMed

Lambin P, Leijenaar RTH, Deist TM et al (2017) Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14(12):749–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141CrossRefPubMed

O’Connor JP, Aboagye EO, Adams JE et al (2017) Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:169–186. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162CrossRefPubMed

van Timmeren JE, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S, Alkadhi H, Baessler B (2020) Radiomics in medical imaging-"how-to" guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging 11(1):91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Song J, Yin Y, Wang H, Chang Z, Liu Z, Cui L (2020) A review of original articles published in the emerging field of radiomics. Eur J Radiol 127:108991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108991CrossRefPubMed

Volpe S, Mastroleo F, Krengli M, Jereczek-Fossa BA (2023) Quo vadis Radiomics? Bibliometric analysis of 10-year Radiomics journey. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09645-6

Pinto Dos Santos D, Dietzel M, Baessler B (2021) A decade of radiomics research: are images really data or just patterns in the noise? Eur Radiol 31(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07108-wCrossRefPubMed

10.

Dewey M, Bosserdt M, Dodd JD, Thun S, Kressel HY (2019) Clinical imaging research: higher evidence, global collaboration, improved reporting, and data sharing are the grand challenges. Radiology 291(3):547–552. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181796CrossRefPubMed

11.

Halligan S, Menu Y, Mallett S (2021) Why did European Radiology reject my radiomic biomarker paper? How to correctly evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting. Eur Radiol 31(12):9361–9368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-07971-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Fournier L, Costaridou L, Bidaut L et al (2021) European Society of Radiology Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers. Eur Radiol 31(8):6001–6012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07598-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Moskowitz CS, Welch ML, Jacobs MA, Kurland BF, Simpson AL (2022) Radiomic analysis: study design, statistical analysis, and other bias mitigation strategies. Radiology 304(2):265–273. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.211597CrossRefPubMed

14.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J et al (2022) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3, 2022. Cochrane Web site. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Updated February, 2022. Accessed 1 Jul 2022.

15.

Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L (2010) An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 377:108–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8CrossRefPubMed

16.

Sollini M, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M (2019) Towards clinical application of image mining: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and radiomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46(13):2656–2672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04372-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Spadarella G, Stanzione A, Akinci D’Antonoli T et al (2022) Systematic review of the radiomics quality score applications: an EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group Initiative. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09187-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Fernandes RM (2014) Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evid Based Child Health 9:486–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/ebch.1968CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L (2017) Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev 6(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Bougioukas KI, Liakos A, Tsapas A, Ntzani E, Haidich AB (2018) Preferred reporting items for overviews of systematic reviews including harms checklist: a pilot tool to be used for balanced reporting of benefits and harms. J Clin Epidemiol 93:9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.002CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fusar-Poli P, Radua J (2018) Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health 21(3):95–100. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014CrossRefPubMed

22.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP et al (2016) ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69:225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Park HY, Suh CH, Woo S, Kim PH, Kim KW (2022) Quality reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines: results from recently published papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology. Korean J Radiol 23(3):355–369. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2021.0808CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Dang Y, Hou Y (2021) The prognostic value of late gadolinium enhancement in heart diseases: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies. Eur Radiol 31(7):4528–4537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07437-wCrossRefPubMed

27.

Al-Okshi A, Horner K, Rohlin M (2021) A meta-review of effective doses in dental and maxillofacial cone beam CT using the ROBIS tool. Br J Radiol 94(1123):20210042. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20210042CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Mangiafico SS (2015) An R companion for the handbook of biological statistics, version 1.3.2, 2015. rcompanion.org/rcompanion/. Accessed 1 Sept 2022.

29.

Mangiafico SS (2016) Summary and analysis of extension program evaluation in R, version 1.19.10,2016. rcompanion.org/handbook/. Accessed 1 Sept 2022.

30.

Michael Dewey, Wolfgang Viechtbauer (2022) CRAN task view: meta-analysis, version 2022-06-21. https://CRAN.R-project.org/view=MetaAnalysis. Accessed 1 Sept 2022.

31.

Gosling CJ, Solanes A, Fusar-Poli P, Radua J (2022) metaumbrella: An R package for conducting umbrella reviews version 1.05, 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metaumbrella/. Accessed 1 Sept 2022.

32.

Bedrikovetski S, Dudi-Venkata NN, Kroon HM et al (2021) Artificial intelligence for pre-operative lymph node staging in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 21(1):1058. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-08773-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Bedrikovetski S, Dudi-Venkata NN, Maicas G et al (2021) Artificial intelligence for the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with abdominopelvic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Artif Intell Med 113:102022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102022CrossRefPubMed

34.

Bhandari AP, Liong R, Koppen J, Murthy SV, Lasocki A (2021) Noninvasive determination of IDHand 1p19q status of lower-grade gliomas using MRI radiomics: a systematic review. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 42(1):94–101. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A6875CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Cao X, Zhu M, Yin L et al (2022) CT radiomics for predicting pathological grade of renal clear cell carcinoma: meta-analysis. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 38(8):1197–1202. https://doi.org/10.13929/j.isn.1003-3289.2022.08.017CrossRef

36.

Castaldo R, Cavaliere C, Soricelli A, Salvatore M, Pecchia L, Franzese M (2021) Radiomic and genomic machine learning method performance for prostate cancer diagnosis: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 23(4):e22394. https://doi.org/10.2196/22394CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Chen Q, Zhang L, Mo X et al (2021) Current status and quality of radiomic studies for predicting immunotherapy response and outcome in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49(1):345–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05509-7CrossRefPubMed

38.

Cleere EF, Davey MG, O’Neill S et al (2022) Radiomic detection of malignancy within thyroid nodules using ultrasonography—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics (Basel) 12(4):794. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12040794CrossRefPubMed

39.

Davey MS, Davey MG, Ryan ÉJ, Hogan AM, Kerin MJ, Joyce M (2021) The use of radiomic analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting distant metastases of rectal carcinoma following surgical resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 23(12):3065–3072. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.15919CrossRefPubMed

40.

Davey MG, Davey MS, Ryan ÉJ et al (2021) Is radiomic MRI a feasible alternative to OncotypeDX® recurrence score testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 5(5):zrab081. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab081CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Davey MG, Davey MS, Boland MR et al (2021) Radiomic differentiation of breast cancer molecular subtypes using pre-operative breast imaging—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 144:109996. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109996CrossRefPubMed

42.

Deantonio L, Garo ML, Paone G et al (2022) 18F-FDG PET radiomics as predictor of treatment response in oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:861638. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.861638CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Gao Y, Cheng S, Zhu L et al (2022) A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks? Eur Radiol 32(12):8443–8452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08922-0CrossRefPubMed

44.

Gao Z, Xiao Y, Zhu F et al (2022) Diagnostic value of radiomics in glioblastoma: a meta-analysis. Chin J Evid Based Med 22(2):232–242. https://doi.org/10.7507/1672-2531.202108134CrossRef

45.

Han Z, Chen Q, Zhang L et al (2022) Radiogenomic association between the T2-FLAIR mismatch sign and IDH mutation status in adult patients with lower-grade gliomas: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 32(8):5339–5352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08607-8CrossRefPubMed

46.

Huang J, Tian W, Zhang L et al (2020) Preoperative prediction power of imaging methods for microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 10:887. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00887CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Huang H, Wang FF, Luo S, Chen G, Tang G (2021) Diagnostic performance of radiomics using machine learning algorithms to predict MGMT promoter methylation status in glioma patients: a meta-analysis. Diagn Interv Radiol 27(6):716–724. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2021.21153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Kao YS, Hsu Y (2021) A meta-analysis for using radiomics to predict complete pathological response in esophageal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation. In Vivo 35(3):1857–1863. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.12448CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Kao YS, Lin KT (2021) A meta-analysis of computerized tomography-based radiomics for the diagnosis of cOVID-19 and viral pneumonia. Diagnostics (Basel) 11(6):991. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11060991CrossRefPubMed

50.

Kao YS, Lin KT (2022) A meta-analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of CT-based radiomics for the prediction of COVID-19 severity. Radiol Med 127(7):754–762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-022-01510-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Kothari G, Korte J, Lehrer EJ et al (2021) A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic value of radiomics based models in non-small cell lung cancer treated with curative radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol 155:188–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2020.10.023CrossRefPubMed

52.

Kozikowski M, Suarez-Ibarrola R, Osiecki R et al (2021) Role of radiomics in the prediction of muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 8(3):728–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.05.005CrossRefPubMed

53.

Lee S, Choi Y, Seo MK et al (2022) Magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics for the prediction of progression-free survival in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 14(3):653. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14030653CrossRefPubMed

54.

Li L, Wu C, Huang Y, Chen J, Ye D, Su Z (2022) Radiomics for the preoperative evaluation of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:831996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.831996CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Li L, Zhang J, Zhe X et al (2022) A meta-analysis of MRI-based radiomic features for predicting lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer. Eur J Radiol 151:110243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110243CrossRefPubMed

56.

Li Y, Liu Y, Liang Y et al (2022) Radiomics can differentiate high-grade glioma from brain metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 32(11):8039–8051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08828-xCrossRefPubMed

57.

Li Z, Ye J, Du H et al (2022) Preoperative prediction power of radiomics for breast cancer: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:837257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.837257CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Liang X, Yu X, Gao T (2022) Machine learning with magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 150:110247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110247CrossRefPubMed

59.

Mühlbauer J, Egen L, Kowalewski KF et al (2021) Radiomics in renal cell carcinoma-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 13(6):1348. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13061348CrossRefPubMed

60.

Pesapane F, Agazzi GM, Rotili A et al (2022) Prediction of the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with MRI-radiomics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cancer 46(5):100883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.currproblcancerCrossRefPubMed

61.

Ren J, Li Y, Liu XY et al (2022) Diagnostic performance of ADC values and MRI-based radiomics analysis for detecting lymph node metastasis in patients with cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 156:110504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110504CrossRefPubMed

62.

Sha YS, Chen JF (2022) MRI-based radiomics for the diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Radiol 77(9):655–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2022.04.015CrossRefPubMed

63.

Sohn CK, Bisdas S (2020) Diagnostic accuracy of machine learning-based radiomics in grading gliomas: systematic review and meta-analysis. Contrast Media Mol Imaging 2020:2127062. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2127062CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Ugga L, Perillo T, Cuocolo R et al (2021) Meningioma MRI radiomics and machine learning: systematic review, quality score assessment, and meta-analysis. Neuroradiology 63(8):1293–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-021-02668-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Ursprung S, Beer L, Bruining A et al (2020) Radiomics of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in renal cell carcinoma-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30(6):3558–3566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06666-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Yang C, Jiang Z, Cheng T et al (2022) Radiomics for predicting response of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:893103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.893103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Zhang J, Huang S, Xu Y, Wu J (2022) Diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence based on imaging data for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:763842. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.763842CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Zhang J, Li L, Zhe X et al (2022) The diagnostic performance of machine learning-based radiomics of DCE-MRI in predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:799209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.799209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

69.

Zhang H, Lei H, Pang J (2022) Diagnostic performance of radiomics in adrenal masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:975183. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.975183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

70.

Zhong J, Hu Y, Si L et al (2021) A systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing radiomics quality score as a tool promoting clinical translation. Eur Radiol 31(3):1526–1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07221-wCrossRefPubMed

71.

Zhong J, Hu Y, Ge X et al (2022) A systematic review of radiomics in chondrosarcoma: assessment of study quality and clinical value needs handy tools. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-09060-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

72.

Zhong J, Hu Y, Zhang G et al (2022) An updated systematic review of radiomics in osteosarcoma: utilizing CLAIM to adapt the increasing trend of deep learning application in radiomics. Insights Imaging 13(1):138. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01277-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Zhong J, Hu Y, Xing Y et al (2022) A systematic review of radiomics in pancreatitis: applying the evidence level rating tool for promoting clinical transferability. Insights Imaging 13(1):139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-022-01279-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

74.

Zhong X, Long H, Su L et al (2022) Radiomics models for preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 47(6):2071–2088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03496-3CrossRefPubMed

75.

Jia LL, Zheng QY, Tian JH et al (2022) Artificial intelligence with magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol 12:1026216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1026216CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Park JE, Kim D, Kim HS et al (2020) Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement. Eur Radiol 30(1):523–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06360-zCrossRefPubMed

77.

Kocak B, Baessler B, Bakas S et al (2023) CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR): a step-by-step reporting guideline for authors and reviewers endorsed by ESR and EuSoMII. Insights Imaging 14(1):75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01415-8

78.

Holzinger A, Haibe-Kains B, Jurisica I (2019) Why imaging data alone is not enough: AI-based integration of imaging, omics, and clinical data. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 46(13):2722–2730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04382-9CrossRefPubMed

79.

EQUATOR network (2022) https://www.equator-network.org. Accessed 1 Nov 2022.

80.

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (2022) GRADE Handbook. https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2022.

Title: An overview of meta-analyses on radiomics: more evidence is needed to support clinical translation
Authors: Jingyu Zhong
Junjie Lu
Guangcheng Zhang
Shiqi Mao
Haoda Chen
Qian Yin
Yangfan Hu
Yue Xing
Defang Ding
Xiang Ge
Huan Zhang
Weiwu Yao
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Keywords: Glioma
Glioma
Glioma
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-023-01437-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

An overview of meta-analyses on radiomics: more evidence is needed to support clinical translation

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance statement

Graphical Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance statement

Graphical Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Education and training in radiation protection in Europe: results from the EURAMED Rocc-n-Roll project survey

Acute abdominal pain in women of reproductive age: keys to suggest a complication of endometriosis

Three-dimensional multifrequency magnetic resonance elastography improves preoperative assessment of proliferative hepatocellular carcinoma

Pictorial essay: MRI evaluation of endometriosis-associated neoplasms

Generalizable attention U-Net for segmentation of fibroglandular tissue and background parenchymal enhancement in breast DCE-MRI

Diagnostic accuracy of ultra-low-dose CT compared to standard-dose CT for identification of non-displaced fractures of the shoulder, knee, ankle, and wrist