Alberto Traverso

Dr. Alberto Traverso

Department of Radiation Oncology (Maastro), GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 December 2017 in Medical Image Analysis
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ASArnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio
Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio
ATAlberto Traverso
Alberto Traverso
TBThomas de Bel
Thomas de Bel
MBMoira S.N. Berens
Moira S.N. Berens
CBCas van Den Bogaard
Cas van Den Bogaard
CJColin Jacobs
Colin Jacobs
Automatic detection of pulmonary nodules in thoracic computed tomography (CT) scans has been an active area of research for the last two decades. However, there have only been few studies that provide a comparative performance evaluation of different systems on a common database. We have therefore set up the LUNA16 challenge, an objective evaluation framework for automatic nodule detection algorithms using the largest publicly available reference database of chest CT scans, the LIDC-IDRI data set. In LUNA16, participants develop their algorithm and upload their predictions on 888 CT scans in one of the two tracks: 1) the complete nodule detection track where a complete CAD system should be developed, or 2) the false positive reduction track where a provided set of nodule candidates should be classified. This paper describes the setup of LUNA16 and presents the results of the challenge so far. Moreover, the impact of combining individual systems on the detection performance was also investigated. It was observed that the leading solutions employed convolutional networks and used the provided set of nodule candidates. The combination of these solutions achieved an excellent sensitivity of over 95% at fewer than 1.0 false positives per scan. This highlights the potential of combining algorithms to improve the detection performance. Our observer study with four expert readers has shown that the best system detects nodules that were missed by expert readers who originally annotated the LIDC-IDRI data. We released this set of additional nodules for further development of CAD systems.

1 November 2018 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ATAlberto Traverso
Alberto Traverso
LWLeonard Wee
Leonard Wee
ADAndré Dekker
André Dekker
RGRobert Gillies
Robert Gillies
An ever-growing number of predictive models used to inform clinical decision making have included quantitative, computer-extracted imaging biomarkers, or "radiomic features." Broadly generalizable validity of radiomics-assisted models may be impeded by concerns about reproducibility. We offer a qualitative synthesis of 41 studies that specifically investigated the repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features, derived from a systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature. The PubMed electronic database was searched using combinations of the broad Haynes and Ingui filters along with a set of text words specific to cancer, radiomics (including texture analyses), reproducibility, and repeatability. This review has been reported in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. From each full-text article, information was extracted regarding cancer type, class of radiomic feature examined, reporting quality of key processing steps, and statistical metric used to segregate stable features. Among 624 unique records, 41 full-text articles were subjected to review. The studies primarily addressed non-small cell lung cancer and oropharyngeal cancer. Only 7 studies addressed in detail every methodologic aspect related to image acquisition, preprocessing, and feature extraction. The repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features are sensitive at various degrees to processing details such as image acquisition settings, image reconstruction algorithm, digital image preprocessing, and software used to extract radiomic features. First-order features were overall more reproducible than shape metrics and textural features. Entropy was consistently reported as one of the most stable first-order features. There was no emergent consensus regarding either shape metrics or textural features; however, coarseness and contrast appeared among the least reproducible. Investigations of feature repeatability and reproducibility are currently limited to a small number of cancer types. Reporting quality could be improved regarding details of feature extraction software, digital image manipulation (preprocessing), and the cutoff value used to distinguish stable features.

17 January 2024 in Insights into Imaging
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BKBurak Kocak
Burak Kocak
TDTugba Akinci D'Antonoli
Tugba Akinci D'Antonoli
NMNathaniel Mercaldo
Nathaniel Mercaldo
AAAngel Alberich-Bayarri
Angel Alberich-Bayarri
BBBettina Baeßler
Bettina Baeßler
Renato CuocoloRenato Cuocolo
Renato Cuocolo
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

1 June 2019 in Radiotherapy and Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SFSandra Fiset
Sandra Fiset
MWMattea L. Welch
Mattea L. Welch
JWJessica Weiss
Jessica Weiss
MPMelania Pintilie
Melania Pintilie
JCJessica L. Conway
Jessica L. Conway
KHKathy Han
Kathy Han

22 December 2018
Verified
Book Chapter
Open access
PDF file
FDFrank J. W. M. Dankers
Frank J. W. M. Dankers
ATAlberto Traverso
Alberto Traverso
LWLeonard Wee
Leonard Wee
SKSander M. J. van Kuijk
Sander M. J. van Kuijk
In the previous chapter, you have learned how to prepare your data before you start the process of generating a predictive model. In this chapter, you will learn how to make a predictive model using very common regression techniques and how to evaluate the performance of a model. In the next chapter we will then look at more advanced machine learning techniques that have become increasingly popular in recent years.

1 March 2020 in Physica Medica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ATAlberto Traverso
Alberto Traverso
MKMichal Kazmierski
Michal Kazmierski
IZIvan Zhovannik
Ivan Zhovannik
MWMattea Welch
Mattea Welch
LWLeonard Wee
Leonard Wee
AHAndrew Hope
Andrew Hope
Highlighting the risk of biases in radiomics-based models will help improve their quality and increase usage as decision support systems in the clinic. In this study we use machine learning-based methods to identify the presence of volume-confounding effects in radiomics features. Methods 841 radiomics features were extracted from two retrospective publicly available datasets of lung and head neck cancers using open source software. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis (PCA) identified relations between radiomics and clinical outcomes (overall survival). Bootstrapping techniques with logistic regression verified features' prognostic power and robustness. Results Over 80% of the features had large pairwise correlations. Nearly 30% of the features presented strong correlations with tumor volume. Using volume-independent features for clustering and PCA did not allow risk stratification of patients. Clinical predictors outperformed radiomics features in bootstrapping and logistic regression. Conclusions The adoption of safeguards in radiomics is imperative to improve the quality of radiomics studies. We proposed machine learning (ML) - based methods for robust radiomics signatures development.