Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Variation in algorithm implementation across radiomics software.
Foy, Joseph J; Robinson, Kayla R; Li, Hui; Giger, Maryellen L; Al-Hallaq, Hania; Armato, Samuel G.
Afiliación
  • Foy JJ; University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Robinson KR; University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Li H; University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Giger ML; University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Al-Hallaq H; University of Chicago, Department of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Armato SG; University of Chicago, Department of Radiology, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
J Med Imaging (Bellingham) ; 5(4): 044505, 2018 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30840747
ABSTRACT
Given the increased need for consistent quantitative image analysis, variations in radiomics feature calculations due to differences in radiomics software were investigated. Two in-house radiomics packages and two freely available radiomics packages, MaZda and IBEX, were utilized. Forty 256 × 256 - pixel regions of interest (ROIs) from 40 digital mammograms were studied along with 39 manually delineated ROIs from the head and neck (HN) computed tomography (CT) scans of 39 patients. Each package was used to calculate first-order histogram and second-order gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features. Friedman tests determined differences in feature values across packages, whereas intraclass-correlation coefficients (ICC) quantified agreement. All first-order features computed from both mammography and HN cases (except skewness in mammography) showed significant differences across all packages due to systematic biases introduced by each package; however, based on ICC values, all but one first-order feature calculated on mammography ROIs and all but two first-order features calculated on HN CT ROIs showed excellent agreement, indicating the observed differences were small relative to the feature values but the bias was systematic. All second-order features computed from the two databases both differed significantly and showed poor agreement among packages, due largely to discrepancies in package-specific default GLCM parameters. Additional differences in radiomics features were traced to variations in image preprocessing, algorithm implementation, and naming conventions. Large variations in features among software packages indicate that increased efforts to standardize radiomics processes must be conducted.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos