↓ Skip to main content

Are deep models in radiomics performing better than generic models? A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology Experimental, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Are deep models in radiomics performing better than generic models? A systematic review
Published in
European Radiology Experimental, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s41747-023-00325-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aydin Demircioğlu

Abstract

Application of radiomics proceeds by extracting and analysing imaging features based on generic morphological, textural, and statistical features defined by formulas. Recently, deep learning methods were applied. It is unclear whether deep models (DMs) can outperform generic models (GMs). We identified publications on PubMed and Embase to determine differences between DMs and GMs in terms of receiver operating area under the curve (AUC). Of 1,229 records (between 2017 and 2021), 69 studies were included, 61 (88%) on tumours, 68 (99%) retrospective, and 39 (56%) single centre; 30 (43%) used an internal validation cohort; and 18 (26%) applied cross-validation. Studies with independent internal cohort had a median training sample of 196 (range 41-1,455); those with cross-validation had only 133 (43-1,426). Median size of validation cohorts was 73 (18-535) for internal and 94 (18-388) for external. Considering the internal validation, in 74% (49/66), the DMs performed better than the GMs, vice versa in 20% (13/66); no difference in 6% (4/66); and median difference in AUC 0.045. On the external validation, DMs were better in 65% (13/20), GMs in 20% (4/20) cases; no difference in 3 (15%); and median difference in AUC 0.025. On internal validation, fused models outperformed GMs and DMs in 72% (20/28), while they were worse in 14% (4/28) and equal in 14% (4/28); median gain in AUC was + 0.02. On external validation, fused model performed better in 63% (5/8), worse in 25% (2/8), and equal in 13% (1/8); median gain in AUC was + 0.025. Overall, DMs outperformed GMs but in 26% of the studies, DMs did not outperform GMs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Computer Science 3 16%
Physics and Astronomy 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2023.
All research outputs
#17,007,917
of 24,995,611 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology Experimental
#154
of 275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,086
of 414,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology Experimental
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,995,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 414,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.