|
1000
|
Abstract/Summary
|
-
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Objectives</jats:title>
<jats:p>To investigate the model-, code-, and data-sharing practices in the current radiomics research landscape and to introduce a radiomics research database.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>A total of 1254 articles published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, in leading radiology journals (<jats:italic>European Radiology</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>European Journal of Radiology</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>Radiology</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>Radiology: Artificial Intelligence</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging</jats:italic>, <jats:italic>Radiology: Imaging Cancer</jats:italic>) were retrospectively screened, and 257 original research articles were included in this study. The categorical variables were compared using Fisher’s exact tests or chi-square test and numerical variables using Student’s <jats:italic>t</jats:italic> test with relation to the year of publication.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>Half of the articles (128 of 257) shared the model by either including the final model formula or reporting the coefficients of selected radiomics features. A total of 73 (28%) models were validated on an external independent dataset. Only 16 (6%) articles shared the data or used publicly available open datasets. Similarly, only 20 (7%) of the articles shared the code. A total of 7 (3%) articles both shared code and data. All collected data in this study is presented in a radiomics research database (<jats:italic>RadBase</jats:italic>) and could be accessed at <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink='http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink' ext-link-type='uri' xlink:href='https://github.com/EuSoMII/RadBase'>https://github.com/EuSoMII/RadBase</jats:ext-link>.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>According to the results of this study, the majority of published radiomics models were not technically reproducible since they shared neither model nor code and data. There is still room for improvement in carrying out reproducible and open research in the field of radiomics.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Clinical relevance statement</jats:title>
<jats:p>To date, the reproducibility of radiomics research and open science practices within the radiomics research community are still very low. Ensuring reproducible radiomics research with model-, code-, and data-sharing practices will facilitate faster clinical translation.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Key Points</jats:title>
<jats:p><jats:italic>• There is a discrepancy between the number of published radiomics papers and the clinical implementation of these published radiomics models.</jats:italic></jats:p>
<jats:p><jats:italic>• The main obstacle to clinical implementation is the lack of model-, code-, and data-sharing practices.</jats:italic></jats:p>
<jats:p><jats:italic>• In order to translate radiomics research into clinical practice, the radiomics research community should adopt open science practices.</jats:italic></jats:p>
</jats:sec>
|
|
1000
|
Hinweis
|
-
DeepGreen-ID: 5e1495e73eb54aebac4da9f0be906c2a ; metadata provieded by: DeepGreen (https://www.oa-deepgreen.de/api/v1/), LIVIVO search scope life sciences (http://z3950.zbmed.de:6210/livivo), Crossref Unified Resource API (https://api.crossref.org/swagger-ui/index.html), to.science.api (https://frl.publisso.de/), ZDB JSON-API (beta) (https://zeitschriftendatenbank.de/api/), lobid - Dateninfrastruktur für Bibliotheken (https://lobid.org/resources/search)
|
