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

With the advent of large language models (LLMs), the artificial intelligence revolution in medicine and radiology is now more tangible than ever. Every day, an increasingly large number of articles are published that utilize LLMs in radiology. To adopt and safely implement this new technology in the field, radiologists should be familiar with its key concepts, understand at least the technical basics, and be aware of the potential risks and ethical considerations that come with it. In this review article, the authors provide an overview of the LLMs that might be relevant to the radiology community and include a brief discussion of their short history, technical basics, ChatGPT, prompt engineering, potential applications in medicine and radiology, advantages, disadvantages and risks, ethical and regulatory considerations, and future directions.

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

With this review, we aimed to provide a synopsis of recently proposed applications of machine learning (ML) in radiology focusing on prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). After defining the difference between ML and classical rule-based algorithms and the distinction among supervised, unsupervised and reinforcement learning, we explain the characteristic of deep learning (DL), a particular new type of ML, including its structure mimicking human neural networks and its ‘black box’ nature. Differences in the pipeline for applying ML and DL to prostate MRI are highlighted. The following potential clinical applications in different settings are outlined, many of them based only on MRI-unenhanced sequences: gland segmentation; assessment of lesion aggressiveness to distinguish between clinically significant and indolent cancers, allowing for active surveillance; cancer detection/diagnosis and localisation (transition versus peripheral zone, use of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) version 2), reading reproducibility, differentiation of cancers from prostatitis benign hyperplasia; local staging and pre-treatment assessment (detection of extraprostatic disease extension, planning of radiation therapy); and prediction of biochemical recurrence. Results are promising, but clinical applicability still requires more robust validation across scanner vendors, field strengths and institutions.