4.0 Article

Quantitative radiomics: impact of stochastic effects on textural feature analysis implies the need for standards

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL IMAGING
卷 2, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.2.4.041002

关键词

quantitative; positron emission tomography; heterogeneity; textural features; simulation; standardization

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA169072, U01 CA148131] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Image heterogeneity metrics such as textural features are an active area of research for evaluating clinical outcomes with positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and other modalities. However, the effects of stochastic image acquisition noise on these metrics are poorly understood. We performed a simulation study by generating 50 statistically independent PET images of the NEMA IQ phantom with realistic noise and resolution properties. Heterogeneity metrics based on gray-level intensity histograms, co-occurrence matrices, neighborhood difference matrices, and zone size matrices were evaluated within regions of interest surrounding the lesions. The impact of stochastic variability was evaluated with percent difference from the mean of the 50 realizations, coefficient of variation and estimated sample size for clinical trials. Additionally, sensitivity studies were performed to simulate the effects of patient size and image reconstruction method on the quantitative performance of these metrics. Complex trends in variability were revealed as a function of textural feature, lesion size, patient size, and reconstruction parameters. In conclusion, the sensitivity of PET textural features to normal stochastic image variation and imaging parameters can be large and is feature-dependent. Standards are needed to ensure that prospective studies that incorporate textural features are properly designed to measure true effects that may impact clinical outcomes. (C) 2015 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

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

4.0
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