Radiomics

ObjectivesTo investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the total radiomics quality score (RQS) and the reproducibility of individual RQS items' score in a large multireader study.MethodsNine raters with different backgrounds were randomly assigned to three groups based on their proficiency with RQS utilization: Groups 1 and 2 represented the inter-rater reliability groups with or without prior training in RQS, respectively; group 3 represented the intra-rater reliability group. Thirty-three original research papers on radiomics were evaluated by raters of groups 1 and 2. Of the 33 papers, 17 were evaluated twice with an interval of 1 month by raters of group 3. Intraclass coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables, and Fleiss' and Cohen's kappa (k) statistics for categorical variables were used.ResultsThe inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate for total RQS (ICC 0.30-055, p ConclusionsReproducibility of the total RQS and the score of individual RQS items is low. There is a need for a robust and reproducible assessment method to assess the quality of radiomics research.Clinical relevance statementThere is a need for reproducible scoring systems to improve quality of radiomics research and consecutively close the translational gap between research and clinical implementation.Key points• Radiomics quality score has been widely used for the evaluation of radiomics studies. • Although the intra-rater reliability was moderate to excellent, intra- and inter-rater reliability of total score and point-by-point scores were low with radiomics quality score. • A robust, easy-to-use scoring system is needed for the evaluation of radiomics research.

ObjectivesTo investigate the model-, code-, and data-sharing practices in the current radiomics research landscape and to introduce a radiomics research database.MethodsA total of 1254 articles published between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, in leading radiology journals (European Radiology, European Journal of Radiology, Radiology, Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging, Radiology: Imaging Cancer) 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 t test with relation to the year of publication.ResultsHalf 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 (RadBase) and could be accessed at https://github.com/EuSoMII/RadBase .ConclusionAccording 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.Clinical relevance statementTo 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.Key points• There is a discrepancy between the number of published radiomics papers and the clinical implementation of these published radiomics models. • The main obstacle to clinical implementation is the lack of model-, code-, and data-sharing practices. • In order to translate radiomics research into clinical practice, the radiomics research community should adopt open science practices.

ObjectivesTo investigate how studies determine the sample size when developing radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes, and whether the sample size meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria.MethodsWe identified radiomics studies that were published from 01 January 2023 to 31 December 2023 in seven leading peer-reviewed radiological journals. We reviewed the sample size justification methods, and actual sample size used. We calculated and compared the actual sample size used to the estimates obtained by using three established criteria proposed by Riley et al. We investigated which characteristics factors were associated with the sufficient sample size that meets the estimates obtained by using established criteria proposed by Riley et al. RESULTS: We included 116 studies. Eleven out of one hundred sixteen studies justified the sample size, in which 6/11 performed a priori sample size calculation. The median (first and third quartile, Q1, Q3) of the total sample size is 223 (130, 463), and those of sample size for training are 150 (90, 288). The median (Q1, Q3) difference between total sample size and minimum sample size according to established criteria are -100 (-216, 183), and those differences between total sample size and a more restrictive approach based on established criteria are -268 (-427, -157). The presence of external testing and the specialty of the topic were associated with sufficient sample size.ConclusionRadiomics studies are often designed without sample size justification, whose sample size may be too small to avoid overfitting. Sample size justification is encouraged when developing a radiomics model.Key pointsQuestion Sample size justification is critical to help minimize overfitting in developing a radiomics model, but is overlooked and underpowered in radiomics research. Findings Few of the radiomics models justified, calculated, or reported their sample size, and most of them did not meet the recent formal sample size criteria. Clinical relevance Radiomics models are often designed without sample size justification. Consequently, many models are too small to avoid overfitting. It should be encouraged to justify, perform, and report the considerations on sample size when developing radiomics models.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in medical imaging has revolutionized diagnostic practices, enabling advanced analysis and interpretation of radiological data. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of radiomics-based and deep learning-based approaches for disease detection in chest radiography, focusing on COVID-19, lung opacity, and viral pneumonia. While deep learning models, particularly convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and vision transformers (ViTs), learn directly from image data, radiomics-based models extract handcrafted features, offering potential advantages in data-limited scenarios. We systematically compared the diagnostic performance of various AI models, including Decision Trees, Gradient Boosting, Random Forests, Support Vector Machines (SVMs), and Multi-Layer Perceptrons (MLPs) for radiomics, against state-of-the-art deep learning models such as InceptionV3, EfficientNetL, and ConvNeXtXLarge. Performance was evaluated across multiple sample sizes. At 24 samples, EfficientNetL achieved an AUC of 0.839, outperforming SVM (AUC = 0.762). At 4000 samples, InceptionV3 achieved the highest AUC of 0.996, compared to 0.885 for Random Forest. A Scheirer-Ray-Hare test confirmed significant main and interaction effects of model type and sample size on all metrics. Post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction further revealed consistent performance advantages for deep learning models across most conditions. These findings provide statistically validated, data-driven recommendations for model selection in diagnostic AI. Deep learning models demonstrated higher performance and better scalability with increasing data availability, while radiomics-based models may remain useful in low-data contexts. This study addresses a critical gap in AI-based diagnostic research by offering practical guidance for deploying AI models across diverse clinical environments.