4.7 Article

Assessing radiomics feature stability with simulated CT acquisitions

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08301-1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Strategic Focal Area Personalized Health and Related Technologies (PHRT) of the ETH Domain [2018-531]
  2. Swiss Personalised Health Network [DMS2445]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Medical imaging quantitative features are becoming increasingly useful in clinical studies, particularly through the extraction of radiomics features. However, the stability of these features remains a significant challenge, which can be addressed using a simulator to assess their stability and discriminative power.
Medical imaging quantitative features had once disputable usefulness in clinical studies. Nowadays, advancements in analysis techniques, for instance through machine learning, have enabled quantitative features to be progressively useful in diagnosis and research. Tissue characterisation is improved via the radiomics features, whose extraction can be automated. Despite the advances, stability of quantitative features remains an important open problem. As features can be highly sensitive to variations of acquisition details, it is not trivial to quantify stability and efficiently select stable features. In this work, we develop and validate a Computed Tomography (CT) simulator environment based on the publicly available ASTRA toolbox (www.astra-toolbox.com). We show that the variability, stability and discriminative power of the radiomics features extracted from the virtual phantom images generated by the simulator are similar to those observed in a tandem phantom study. Additionally, we show that the variability is matched between a multi-center phantom study and simulated results. Consequently, we demonstrate that the simulator can be utilised to assess radiomics features' stability and discriminative power.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available