METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS): a quality scoring tool for radiomics research endorsed by EuSoMII
-
Published:2024-01-17
Issue:1
Volume:15
Page:
-
ISSN:1869-4101
-
Container-title:Insights into Imaging
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Insights Imaging
Author:
Kocak BurakORCID, Akinci D’Antonoli TugbaORCID, Mercaldo NathanielORCID, Alberich-Bayarri AngelORCID, Baessler BettinaORCID, Ambrosini IlariaORCID, Andreychenko Anna E.ORCID, Bakas SpyridonORCID, Beets-Tan Regina G. H.ORCID, Bressem KenoORCID, Buvat IreneORCID, Cannella RobertoORCID, Cappellini Luca AlessandroORCID, Cavallo Armando UgoORCID, Chepelev Leonid L.ORCID, Chu Linda Chi HangORCID, Demircioglu AydinORCID, deSouza Nandita M.ORCID, Dietzel MatthiasORCID, Fanni Salvatore ClaudioORCID, Fedorov AndreyORCID, Fournier Laure S.ORCID, Giannini ValentinaORCID, Girometti RossanoORCID, Groot Lipman Kevin B. W.ORCID, Kalarakis GeorgiosORCID, Kelly Brendan S.ORCID, Klontzas Michail E.ORCID, Koh Dow-MuORCID, Kotter ElmarORCID, Lee Ho YunORCID, Maas MarioORCID, Marti-Bonmati LuisORCID, Müller HenningORCID, Obuchowski NancyORCID, Orlhac FannyORCID, Papanikolaou NikolaosORCID, Petrash EkaterinaORCID, Pfaehler ElisabethORCID, Pinto dos Santos DanielORCID, Ponsiglione AndreaORCID, Sabater SebastiàORCID, Sardanelli FrancescoORCID, Seeböck PhilippORCID, Sijtsema Nanna M.ORCID, Stanzione ArnaldoORCID, Traverso AlbertoORCID, Ugga LorenzoORCID, Vallières MartinORCID, van Dijk Lisanne V.ORCID, van Griethuysen Joost J. M.ORCID, van Hamersvelt Robbert W.ORCID, van Ooijen PeterORCID, Vernuccio FedericaORCID, Wang AlanORCID, Williams StuartORCID, Witowski JanORCID, Zhang ZhongyiORCID, Zwanenburg AlexORCID, Cuocolo RenatoORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies.
Methods
We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated.
Result
In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community.
Conclusion
In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers.
Critical relevance statement
A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning.
Key points
• A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol.
• The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time.
• METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines.
• A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score (https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community (https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics).
Graphical Abstract
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015151169 2. Kocak B, Baessler B, Cuocolo R et al (2023) Trends and statistics of artificial intelligence and radiomics research in Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging: bibliometric analysis. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09772-0 3. Kocak B, Bulut E, Bayrak ON et al (2023) NEgatiVE results in Radiomics research (NEVER): a meta-research study of publication bias in leading radiology journals. Eur J Radiol 163:110830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110830 4. 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 31:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07108-w 5. Papanikolaou N, Matos C, Koh DM (2020) How to develop a meaningful radiomic signature for clinical use in oncologic patients. Cancer Imaging 20:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00311-4
Cited by
48 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|