ArticleEuropean journal of radiology2025
Reliability of rectal MRI radiomic features: Comparing rectal MRI radiomic features across reader expertise levels, image segmentation technique, and timing of rectal MRI in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.
Article in European journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the reliability of rectal MRI radiomic features across reader expertise level, image segmentation technique, and timing of rectal MRI. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis retrospective single-institutional study included consecutive patients with rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent total neoadjuvant therapy from January 2018 to June 2018. Baseline and restaging rectal MRI T2-weighted images were segmented independently by six radiologists (two fellows, two non-rectal radiologists, and two rectal radiologists). Four segmentation strategies were used and varied by image segmentation technique and timing of rectal MRI: (a) baseline volume of interest (VOI), (b) baseline region of interest (ROI), (c) restaging VOI, and (d) restaging ROI. Inter-reader agreement on each extracted radiomic feature was evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsAmong 24 patients (16 men; median age, 56 years [interquartile range: 49-62]), 1,595 radiomic features were extracted. Baseline VOI segmentation achieved the highest inter-reader agreement rate, with 68 % (1,079/1,595) of radiomic features having an ICC > 0.7. Restaging ROI segmentation achieved the worst inter-reader agreement rate, with only 26 % (415/1,595) of radiomic features having an ICC > 0.7. First-order statistics and Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM) feature subgroups showed high inter-reader agreement rates, and the application of 'Square Root' and 'LOG Sigma' filters resulted in improved inter-reader agreement rates relative to original images. The expertise level of radiologists performing the segmentations did not affect the distribution of inter-agreement rates according to image segmentation technique or timing of rectal MRI.
conclusionsRadiomic features were more reliable when extracted from baseline (vs. restaging) rectal MRIs and using 3D volume of interest (vs. 2D region of interest) segmentation, independent of the expertise level of the radiologists performing the segmentation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiomic studies on rectal MRI employ various segmentation strategies and few assess their impact on reproducibility. Establishing the optimal segmentation method enhances radiomics model generalizability, potentially bridging the gap in clinical translation and improving clinical management of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.