Radiomics aims to quantify phenotypic characteristics on medical imaging through the use of automated algorithms. Radiomic artificial intelligence (AI) technology, either based on engineered hard-coded algorithms or deep learning methods, can be used to develop noninvasive imaging-based biomarkers. However, lack of standardized algorithm definitions and image processing severely hampers reproducibility and comparability of results. To address this issue, we developed PyRadiomics, a flexible open-source platform capable of extracting a large panel of engineered features from medical images. PyRadiomics is implemented in Python and can be used standalone or using 3D Slicer. Here, we discuss the workflow and architecture of PyRadiomics and demonstrate its application in characterizing lung lesions. Source code, documentation, and examples are publicly available at www.radiomics.io. With this platform, we aim to establish a reference standard for radiomic analyses, provide a tested and maintained resource, and to grow the community of radiomic developers addressing critical needs in cancer research. Cancer Res; 77(21); e104–7. ©2017 AACR.

The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative validated consensus-based reference values for 169 radiomics features, thus enabling calibration and verification of radiomics software. Background Radiomic features may quantify characteristics present in medical imaging. However, the lack of standardized definitions and validated reference values have hampered clinical use. Purpos...

Even though radiomics can hold great potential for supporting clinical decision-making, its current use is mostly limited to academic research, without applications in routine clinical practice. The workflow of radiomics is complex due to several methodological steps and nuances, which often leads to inadequate reporting and evaluation, and poor reproducibility. Available reporting guidelines and checklists for artificial intelligence and predictive modeling include relevant good practices, but they are not tailored to radiomic research. There is a clear need for a complete radiomics checklist for study planning, manuscript writing, and evaluation during the review process to facilitate the repeatability and reproducibility of studies. We here present a documentation standard for radiomic research that can guide authors and reviewers. Our motivation is to improve the quality and reliability and, in turn, the reproducibility of radiomic research. We name the checklist CLEAR (CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research), to convey the idea of being more transparent. With its 58 items, the CLEAR checklist should be considered a standardization tool providing the minimum requirements for presenting clinical radiomics research. In addition to a dynamic online version of the checklist, a public repository has also been set up to allow the radiomics community to comment on the checklist items and adapt the checklist for future versions. Prepared and revised by an international group of experts using a modified Delphi method, we hope the CLEAR checklist will serve well as a single and complete scientific documentation tool for authors and reviewers to improve the radiomics literature.

Purpose: To propose a new quality scoring tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), to assess and improve research quality of radiomics studies. Methods: We conducted an online modified Delphi study with a group of international experts. It was performed in three consecutive stages: Stage#1, item preparation; Stage#2, panel discussion among EuSoMII Auditing Group members to identify the items to be voted; and Stage#3, four rounds of the modified Delphi exercise by panelists to determine the items eligible for the METRICS and their weights. The consensus threshold was 75%. Based on the median ranks derived from expert panel opinion and their rank-sum based conversion to importance scores, the category and item weights were calculated. Result: In total, 59 panelists from 19 countries participated in selection and ranking of the items and categories. Final METRICS tool included 30 items within 9 categories. According to their weights, the categories were in descending order of importance: study design, imaging data, image processing and feature extraction, metrics and comparison, testing, feature processing, preparation for modeling, segmentation, and open science. A web application and a repository were developed to streamline the calculation of the METRICS score and to collect feedback from the radiomics community. Conclusion: In this work, we developed a scoring tool for assessing the methodological quality of the radiomics research, with a large international panel and a modified Delphi protocol. With its conditional format to cover methodological variations, it provides a well-constructed framework for the key methodological concepts to assess the quality of radiomic research papers. Critical relevance statement: A quality assessment tool, METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS), is made available by a large group of international domain experts, with transparent methodology, aiming at evaluating and improving research quality in radiomics and machine learning. Key points: • A methodological scoring tool, METRICS, was developed for assessing the quality of radiomics research, with a large international expert panel and a modified Delphi protocol. • The proposed scoring tool presents expert opinion-based importance weights of categories and items with a transparent methodology for the first time. • METRICS accounts for varying use cases, from handcrafted radiomics to entirely deep learning-based pipelines. • A web application has been developed to help with the calculation of the METRICS score (https://metricsscore.github.io/metrics/METRICS.html) and a repository created to collect feedback from the radiomics community (https://github.com/metricsscore/metrics). Graphical

Volumetric change in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) over time is a critical factor in treatment decisions. Typically, the tumor volume is computed on a slice-by-slice basis using MRI scans obtained at regular intervals. (3D)Slicer – a free platform for biomedical research – provides an alternative to this manual slice-by-slice segmentation process, which is significantly faster and requires less user interaction. In this study, 4 physicians segmented GBMs in 10 patients, once using the competitive region-growing based GrowCut segmentation module of Slicer, and once purely by drawing boundaries completely manually on a slice-by-slice basis. Furthermore, we provide a variability analysis for three physicians for 12 GBMs. The time required for GrowCut segmentation was on an average 61% of the time required for a pure manual segmentation. A comparison of Slicer-based segmentation with manual slice-by-slice segmentation resulted in a Dice Similarity Coefficient of 88.43 ± 5.23% and a Hausdorff Distance of 2.32 ± 5.23 mm.