Several large language models showed high accuracy and quality for translating radiology reports across high-resource and low-resource languages; however, no one-size-fits-all model was identified.

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

Objectives: To investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the total methodological radiomics score (METRICS) and its items through a multi-reader analysis. Materials and methods: A total of 12 raters with different backgrounds and experience levels were recruited for the study. Based on their level of expertise, raters were randomly assigned to the following groups: two inter-rater reliability groups, and two intra-rater reliability groups, where each group included one group with and one group without a preliminary training session on the use of METRICS. Inter-rater reliability groups assessed all 34 papers, while intra-rater reliability groups completed the assessment of 17 papers twice within 21 days each time, and a “wash out” period of 60 days in between. Results: Inter-rater reliability was poor to moderate between raters of group 1 (without training; ICC = 0.393; 95% CI = 0.115–0.630; p = 0.002), and between raters of group 2 (with training; ICC = 0.433; 95% CI = 0.127–0.671; p = 0.002). The intra-rater analysis was excellent for raters 9 and 12, good to excellent for raters 8 and 10, moderate to excellent for rater 7, and poor to good for rater 11. Conclusion: The intra-rater reliability of the METRICS score was relatively good, while the inter-rater reliability was relatively low. This highlights the need for further efforts to achieve a common understanding of METRICS items, as well as resources consisting of explanations, elaborations, and examples to improve reproducibility and enhance their usability and robustness. Key Points: Questions Guidelines and scoring tools are necessary to improve the quality of radiomics research; however, the application of these tools is challenging for less experienced raters. Findings Intra-rater reliability was high across all raters regardless of experience level or previous training, and inter-rater reliability was generally poor to moderate across raters. Clinical relevance Guidelines and scoring tools are necessary for proper reporting in radiomics research and for closing the gap between research and clinical implementation. There is a need for further resources offering explanations, elaborations, and examples to enhance the usability and robustness of these guidelines.

Radiomics research has been hindered by inconsistent and often poor methodological quality, limiting its potential for clinical translation. To address this challenge, the METhodological RadiomICs Score (METRICS) was recently introduced as a tool for systematically assessing study rigor. However, its effective application requires clearer guidance. The METRICS-E3 (Explanation and Elaboration with Examples) resource was developed by the European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics—Radiomics Auditing Group in response. This international initiative provides comprehensive support for users by offering detailed rationales, interpretive guidance, scoring recommendations, and illustrative examples for each METRICS item and condition. Each criterion includes positive examples from peer-reviewed, open-access studies and hypothetical negative examples. In total, the finalized METRICS-E3 includes over 200 examples. The complete resource is publicly available through an interactive website. Critical relevance statement: METRICS-E3 offers deeper insights into each METRICS item and condition, providing concrete examples with accompanying commentary and recommendations to enhance the evaluation of methodological quality in radiomics research. Key Points: As a complementary initiative to METRICS, METRICS-E3 is intended to support stakeholders in evaluating the methodological aspects of radiomics studies. In METRICS-E3, each METRICS item and condition is supplemented with interpretive guidance, positive literature-based examples, hypothetical negative examples, and scoring recommendations. The complete METRICS-E3 explanation and elaboration resource is accessible at its interactive website. Graphical

Multiple myeloma (MM) is one of the most common hematological malignancies affecting the bone marrow. Radiomics analysis has been employed in the literature in an attempt to evaluate the bone marrow of MM patients. This manuscript aimed to systematically review radiomics research on MM while employing a radiomics quality score (RQS) to accurately assess research quality in the field. A systematic search was performed on Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. The selected manuscripts were evaluated (data extraction and RQS scoring) by three independent readers (R1, R2, and R3) with experience in radiomics analysis. A total of 23 studies with 2682 patients were included, and the median RQS was 10 for R1 (IQR 5.5–12) and R3 (IQR 8.3–12) and 11 (IQR 7.5–12.5) for R2. RQS was not significantly correlated with any of the assessed bibliometric data (impact factor, quartile, year of publication, and imaging modality) (p > 0.05). Our results demonstrated the low quality of published radiomics research in MM, similarly to other fields of radiomics research, highlighting the need to tighten publication standards.

Detecting active inflammatory sacroiliitis at an early stage is vital for prescribing medications that can modulate disease progression and significantly delay or prevent debilitating forms of axial spondyloarthropathy. Conventional radiography and computed tomography offer limited sensitivity in detecting acute inflammatory findings as these methods primarily identify chronic structural lesions. Conversely, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the preferred technique for detecting bone marrow edema, although it is a complex process requiring extensive expertise. Additionally, ascertaining the origin of lesions can be challenging, even for experienced medical professionals. Machine learning (ML) has showcased its proficiency in various fields by uncovering patterns that are not easily perceived from multi-dimensional datasets derived from medical imaging. The aim of this study is to develop a radiomic signature to aid clinicians in diagnosing active sacroiliitis. A total of 354 sacroiliac joints were segmented from axial fluid-sensitive MRI images, and their radiomic features were extracted. After selecting the most informative features, a number of ML algorithms were utilized to identify the optimal method for detecting active sacroiliitis, leading to the selection of an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model that accomplished an Area Under the Receiver-Operating Characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.71, thus further showcasing the potential of radiomics in the field.