ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Automated Machine Learning Frameworks for Radiomics: Comparative Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated machine learning (AutoML) frameworks can lower technical barriers for predictive and prognostic model development in radiomics by enabling researchers without programming expertise to build models. However, their effectiveness in addressing radiomics-specific challenges remains unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the performance, efficiency, and accessibility of general-purpose and radiomics-specific AutoML frameworks on diverse radiomics classification tasks, thereby guiding researchers and highlighting development needs for radiomics.
methodsA total of 10 public and private radiomics datasets with varied imaging modalities (computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging), sizes, anatomies, and end points were used. Six general-purpose and 5 radiomics-specific frameworks were tested with predefined parameters using standardized cross-validation. Evaluation metrics included area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, runtime, and qualitative aspects related to software status, accessibility, and interpretability.
resultsSimplatab, a radiomics-specific tool with a no-code interface, achieved the best overall balance between performance and computational efficiency, recording the highest average test area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (mean 78.46%, SD 12.22%) with a moderate runtime (1.1 h). However, its performance was not statistically superior to the most intensive general-purpose solutions. Most radiomics-specific frameworks were excluded from the performance analysis due to obsolescence, extensive programming requirements, or computational inefficiency. Conversely, general-purpose frameworks demonstrated higher accessibility and ease of implementation.
conclusionsWhile no single framework demonstrated absolute predictive superiority, Simplatab provides an effective balance of performance, efficiency, and accessibility for radiomics classification problems. However, continued efforts are needed to further mature AutoML solutions in the radiomics domain.
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.