Radiomics is a quantitative approach to medical imaging, which aims at enhancing the existing data available to clinicians by means of advanced mathematical analysis. Through mathematical extraction of the spatial distribution of signal intensities and pixel interrelationships, radiomics quantifies textural information by using analysis methods from the field of artificial intelligence. Various studies from different fields in imaging have been published so far, highlighting the potential of radiomics to enhance clinical decision-making. However, the field faces several important challenges, which are mainly caused by the various technical factors influencing the extracted radiomic features.The aim of the present review is twofold: first, we present the typical workflow of a radiomics analysis and deliver a practical “how-to” guide for a typical radiomics analysis. Second, we discuss the current limitations of radiomics, suggest potential improvements, and summarize relevant literature on the subject.

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.

Background Automation bias (the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems) is a known source of error in human-machine interactions, but its implications regarding artificial intelligence (AI)-aided mammography reading are unknown. Purpose To determine how automation bias can affect inexperienced, moderately experienced, and very experienced radiologists when reading mammograms with the aid of an artificial intelligence (AI) system. Materials and Methods In this prospective experiment, 27 radiologists read 50 mammograms and provided their Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment assisted by a purported AI system. Mammograms were obtained between January 2017 and December 2019 and were presented in two randomized sets. The first was a training set of 10 mammograms, with the correct BI-RADS category suggested by the AI system. The second was a set of 40 mammograms in which an incorrect BI-RADS category was suggested for 12 mammograms. Reader performance, degree of bias in BI-RADS scoring, perceived accuracy of the AI system, and reader confidence in their own BI-RADS ratings were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and repeated-measures ANOVA followed by post hoc tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by the Dunn post hoc test. Results The percentage of correctly rated mammograms by inexperienced (mean, 79.7% ± 11.7 [SD] vs 19.8% ± 14.0; P < .001; r = 0.93), moderately experienced (mean, 81.3% ± 10.1 vs 24.8% ± 11.6; P < .001; r = 0.96), and very experienced (mean, 82.3% ± 4.2 vs 45.5% ± 9.1; P = .003; r = 0.97) radiologists was significantly impacted by the correctness of the AI prediction of BI-RADS category. Inexperienced radiologists were significantly more likely to follow the suggestions of the purported AI when it incorrectly suggested a higher BI-RADS category than the actual ground truth compared with both moderately (mean degree of bias, 4.0 ± 1.8 vs 2.4 ± 1.5; P = .044; r = 0.46) and very (mean degree of bias, 4.0 ± 1.8 vs 1.2 ± 0.8; P = .009; r = 0.65) experienced readers. Conclusion The results show that inexperienced, moderately experienced, and very experienced radiologists reading mammograms are prone to automation bias when being supported by an AI-based system. This and other effects of human and machine interaction must be considered to ensure safe deployment and accurate diagnostic performance when combining human readers and AI. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Baltzer in this issue.

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

Machine learning (ML) is making a dramatic impact on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in many ways. This review seeks to highlight the major areas in CMR where ML, and deep learning in particular, can assist clinicians and engineers in improving imaging efficiency, quality, image analysis and interpretation, as well as patient evaluation. We discuss recent developments in the field of ML relevant to CMR in the areas of image acquisition & reconstruction, image analysis, diagnostic evaluation and derivation of prognostic information. To date, the main impact of ML in CMR has been to significantly reduce the time required for image segmentation and analysis. Accurate and reproducible fully automated quantification of left and right ventricular mass and volume is now available in commercial products. Active research areas include reduction of image acquisition and reconstruction time, improving spatial and temporal resolution, and analysis of perfusion and myocardial mapping. Although large cohort studies are providing valuable data sets for ML training, care must be taken in extending applications to specific patient groups. Since ML algorithms can fail in unpredictable ways, it is important to mitigate this by open source publication of computational processes and datasets. Furthermore, controlled trials are needed to evaluate methods across multiple centers and patient groups.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the robustness and reproducibility of radiomic features in different magnetic resonance imaging sequences. Materials and Methods: A phantom was scanned on a clinical 3 T system using fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), T1-weighted (T1w), and T2-weighted (T2w) sequences with low and high matrix size. For retest data, scans were repeated after repositioning of the phantom. Test and retest datasets were segmented using a semiautomated approach. Intraobserver and interobserver comparison was performed. Radiomic features were extracted after standardized preprocessing of images. Test-retest robustness was assessed using concordance correlation coefficients, dynamic range, and Bland-Altman analyses. Reproducibility was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients. Results: The number of robust features (concordance correlation coefficient and dynamic range ≥ 0.90) was higher for features calculated from FLAIR than from T1w and T2w images. High-resolution FLAIR images provided the highest percentage of robust features (n = 37/45, 81%). No considerable difference in the number of robust features was observed between low- and high-resolution T1w and T2w images (T1w low: n = 26/45, 56%; T1w high: n = 25/45, 54%; T2 low: n = 21/45, 46%; T2 high: n = 24/45, 52%). A total of 15 (33%) of 45 features showed excellent robustness across all sequences and demonstrated excellent intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient ≥ 0.75). Conclusions: FLAIR delivers the most robust substrate for radiomic analyses. Only 15 of 45 features showed excellent robustness and reproducibility across all sequences. Care must be taken in the interpretation of clinical studies using nonrobust features.