ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Explainable Radiomics-Based Model for Automatic Image Quality Assessment in Breast Cancer DCE MRI Data.
Article in Journal of imaging, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to develop an explainable radiomics-based model for the automatic assessment of image quality in breast cancer Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) data. A cohort of 280 images obtained from a public database was annotated by two clinical experts, resulting in 110 high-quality and 110 low-quality images. The proposed methodology involved the extraction of 819 radiomic features and 2 No-Reference image quality metrics per patient, using both the whole image and the background as regions of interest. Feature extraction was performed under two scenarios: (i) from a sample of 12 slices per patient, and (ii) from the middle slice of each patient. Following model training, a range of machine learning classifiers were applied with explainability assessed through SHapley Additive Explanations (SHAP). The best performance was achieved in the second scenario, where combining features from the whole image and background with a support vector machine classifier yielded sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC values of 85.51%, 80.01%, 82.76%, and 89.37%, respectively. This proposed model demonstrates potential for integration into clinical practice and may also serve as a valuable resource for large-scale repositories and subgroup analyses aimed at ensuring fairness and explainability.
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.