↓ Skip to main content

Exploring Applications of Radiomics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring Applications of Radiomics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2018.00131
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amit Jethanandani, Timothy A. Lin, Stefania Volpe, Hesham Elhalawani, Abdallah S. R. Mohamed, Pei Yang, Clifton D. Fuller

Abstract

Radiomics has been widely investigated for non-invasive acquisition of quantitative textural information from anatomic structures. While the vast majority of radiomic analysis is performed on images obtained from computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics has generated increased attention. In head and neck cancer (HNC), however, attempts to perform consistent investigations are sparse, and it is unclear whether the resulting textural features can be reproduced. To address this unmet need, we systematically reviewed the quality of existing MRI radiomics research in HNC. Literature search was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Electronic databases were examined from January 1990 through November 2017 for common radiomic keywords. Eligible completed studies were then scored using a standardized checklist that we developed from Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research guidelines for reporting machine-learning predictive model specifications and results in biomedical research, defined by Luo et al. (1). Descriptive statistics of checklist scores were populated, and a subgroup analysis of methodology items alone was conducted in comparison to overall scores. Sixteen completed studies and four ongoing trials were selected for inclusion. Of the completed studies, the nasopharynx was the most common site of study (37.5%). MRI modalities varied with only four of the completed studies (25%) extracting radiomic features from a single sequence. Study sample sizes ranged between 13 and 118 patients (median of 40), and final radiomic signatures ranged from 2 to 279 features. Analyzed endpoints included either segmentation or histopathological classification parameters (44%) or prognostic and predictive biomarkers (56%). Liu et al. (2) addressed the highest number of our checklist items (total score: 48), and a subgroup analysis of methodology checklist items alone did not demonstrate any difference in scoring trends between studies [Spearman's ρ = 0.94 (p < 0.0001)]. Although MRI radiomic applications demonstrate predictive potential in analyzing diverse HNC outcomes, methodological variances preclude accurate and collective interpretation of data.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 15%
Student > Master 18 12%
Other 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 39 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 26%
Computer Science 13 9%
Engineering 11 7%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 54 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2021.
All research outputs
#15,840,966
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#5,019
of 22,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,968
of 341,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#67
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,634 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.