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

Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects - Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

Recent advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence technology have ensured automated evaluation of medical images. As a result, quantifiable diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers have been created. We discuss radiomics applications for the head and neck region in this paper. Molecular characterization, categorization, prognosis and therapy recommendation are given special consideration. In a narrative manner, we outline the fundamental technological principles, the overall idea and usual workflow of radiomic analysis and what seem to be the present and potential challenges in normal clinical practice. Clinical oncology intends for all of this to ensure informed decision support for personalized and useful cancer treatment. Head and neck cancers present a unique set of diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. These challenges are brought on by the complicated anatomy and heterogeneity of the area under investigation. Radiomics has the potential to address these barriers. Future research must be interdisciplinary and focus on the study of certain oncologic functions and outcomes, with external validation and multi-institutional cooperation in order to achieve this.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming radiology by improving diagnostic accuracy, streamlining workflows, and enhancing operational efficiency. However, these advancements come with significant sustainability challenges across environmental, economic, and social dimensions. AI systems, particularly deep learning models, require substantial computational resources, leading to high energy consumption, increased carbon emissions, and hardware waste. Data storage and cloud computing further exacerbate the environmental impact. Economically, the high costs of implementing AI tools often outweigh the demonstrated clinical benefits, raising concerns about their long-term viability and equity in healthcare systems. Socially, AI risks perpetuating healthcare disparities through biases in algorithms and unequal access to technology. On the other hand, AI has the potential to improve sustainability in healthcare by reducing low-value imaging, optimizing resource allocation, and improving energy efficiency in radiology departments. This review addresses the sustainability paradox of AI from a radiological perspective, exploring its environmental footprint, economic feasibility, and social implications. Strategies to mitigate these challenges are also discussed, alongside a call for action and directions for future research. Critical relevance statement: By adopting an informed and holistic approach, the radiology community can ensure that AI’s benefits are realized responsibly, balancing innovation with sustainability. This effort is essential to align technological advancements with environmental preservation, economic sustainability, and social equity. Key Points: AI has an ambivalent potential, capable of both exacerbating global sustainability issues and offering increased productivity and accessibility. Addressing AI sustainability requires a broad perspective accounting for environmental impact, economic feasibility, and social implications. By embracing the duality of AI, the radiology community can adopt informed strategies at individual, institutional, and collective levels to maximize its benefits while minimizing negative impacts. Graphical

T1 mapping is an established cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) technique that can characterize myocardial tissue. We aimed to determine the weighted mean native T1 values of Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) patients and the standardized mean differences (SMD) as compared to healthy control subjects. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted according to the PRISMA statement to retrieve original studies reporting myocardial native T1 values in AFD patients and healthy controls. A random effects model was used to calculate SMD, and meta-regression analysis was conducted to explore heterogeneity sources. Subgroup analysis was also performed according to scanner field strength and sequence type. From a total of 151 items, 14 articles were included in the final analysis accounting for a total population of 982 subjects. Overall, the weighted mean native T1 values was 984 ± 47 ms in AFD patients and 1016 ± 26 ms in controls (P < 0.0001) with a pooled SMD of − 2.38. In AFD patients there was an inverse correlation between native T1 values and male gender (P = 0.002) and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses confirmed lower T1 values in AFD patients compared to controls with a pooled SMD of − 2.54, − 2.28, − 2.46 for studies performed on 1.5T with modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), shortened MOLLI and saturation-recovery single-shot acquisition, respectively and of − 2.41 for studies conducted on 3T. Our findings confirm a reduction of native T1 values in AFD patients compared to healthy controls and point out that the degree of T1 shortening in AFD is influenced by gender and LVH. Although T1 mapping is useful in proving cardiac involvement in AFD patients, there is need to standardize shreshold values according to imaging equipment and protocols.

Overall quality of radiomics research has been reported as low in literature, which constitutes a major challenge to improve. Consistent, transparent, and accurate reporting is critical, which can be accomplished with systematic use of reporting guidelines. The CheckList for EvaluAtion of Radiomics research (CLEAR) was previously developed to assist authors in reporting their radiomic research and to assist reviewers in their evaluation. To take full advantage of CLEAR, further explanation and elaboration of each item, as well as literature examples, may be useful. The main goal of this work, Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for CLEAR (CLEAR-E3), is to improve CLEAR’s usability and dissemination. In this international collaborative effort, members of the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics−Radiomics Auditing Group searched radiomics literature to identify representative reporting examples for each CLEAR item. At least two examples, demonstrating optimal reporting, were presented for each item. All examples were selected from open-access articles, allowing users to easily consult the corresponding full-text articles. In addition to these, each CLEAR item’s explanation was further expanded and elaborated. For easier access, the resulting document is available at https://radiomic.github.io/CLEAR-E3/. As a complementary effort to CLEAR, we anticipate that this initiative will assist authors in reporting their radiomics research with greater ease and transparency, as well as editors and reviewers in reviewing manuscripts.Relevance statement Along with the original CLEAR checklist, CLEAR-E3 is expected to provide a more in-depth understanding of the CLEAR items, as well as concrete examples for reporting and evaluating radiomic research.Key points• As a complementary effort to CLEAR, this international collaborative effort aims to assist authors in reporting their radiomics research, as well as editors and reviewers in reviewing radiomics manuscripts.• Based on positive examples from the literature selected by the EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group, each CLEAR item explanation was further elaborated in CLEAR-E3.• The resulting explanation and elaboration document with examples can be accessed at https://radiomic.github.io/CLEAR-E3/. Graphical Abstract