ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Impact of Radiomics Parameters and Clinical Integration on Prognostication in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Radiomics has the potential to improve risk stratification in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), but clinical adoption is limited by inconsistent performance across institutions. A key source of variability is how radiomic features are generated, preprocessed, and selected prior to model development. This multicenter study evaluated how radiomics parameterization and feature selection strategies affect external model performance, feature stability, and time-to-event risk stratification. We studied pre-treatment CT scans from 752 patients with primary HNSCC from three hospitals. For each scan, 1648 radiomic features were computed using 20 different preparation methods that varied in scaling, outlier removal, and gray-level bin width. We compared five feature selection methods: Graph-FS with connected components, Boruta, Lasso, RFE-RF, and mRMR. The classification models used were Random Forest, XGBoost, CatBoost, and Logistic Regression. We measured performance using external ROC-AUC, bootstrap confidence intervals, Brier score, and RobustScore. Stability of feature selection was assessed using the Kuncheva and Jaccard indices. Cox proportional hazards models confirmed time-to-event results, and consensus SHAP analysis helped explain the models. Radiomics parameterization influenced model performance, and no single configuration was optimal across all analyses. Radiomics-only models outperformed clinical-only models, while clinical-radiomics models achieved the highest overall performance. mRMR and Lasso produced the highest average external AUCs, while Graph-FS showed the greatest stability. The best classification model achieved an external AUC of 0.817. In Cox validation, the best clinical-radiomics configuration achieved an external C-index of 0.662 and separated high- and low-risk patients in the external cohort.
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.