4.6 Review

Variability and Standardization of Quantitative Imaging Monoparametric to Multiparametric Quantification, Radiomics, and Artificial Intelligence

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 601-616

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000666

关键词

quantitative imaging; quantitative imaging biomarker alliance; standardization; diffusion-weighted imaging; synthetic MRI; magnetic resonance fingerprinting; chest CT; radiomics; artificial intelligence; deep learning

资金

  1. AMED [JP19lk1010025h9902]
  2. JSPS KAKENHI [19K17150, 19K17177, 18H02772, JP16H06280]
  3. Health, Labour and Welfare Policy Research Grants for Research on Region Medical
  4. Promotion and Mutual AidCorporation for Private Schools of Japan
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18H02772, 19K17177, 19K17150] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Radiological images have been assessed qualitatively in most clinical settings by the expert eyes of radiologists and other clinicians. On the other hand, quantification of radiological images has the potential to detect early disease that may be difficult to detect with human eyes, complement or replace biopsy, and provide clear differentiation of disease stage. Further, objective assessment by quantification is a prerequisite of personalized/precision medicine. This review article aims to summarize and discuss how the variability of quantitative values derived from radiological images are induced by a number of factors and how these variabilities are mitigated and standardization of the quantitative values are achieved. We discuss the variabilities of specific biomarkers derived from magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography, and focus on diffusion-weighted imaging, relaxometry, lung density evaluation, and computer-aided computed tomography volumetry. We also review the sources of variability and current efforts of standardization of the rapidly evolving techniques, which include radiomics and artificial intelligence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据