Hyungjin Kim1, Chang Min Park1,2, Jeonghwan Gwak1, Eui Jin Hwang1, Seon Young Lee3, Julip Jung3, Helen Hong3, Jin Mo Goo1,2. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. 2. 2 Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. 3. 3 Department of Software Convergence, Seoul Women's University, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the diagnostic performance of machine learning-based radiomics models for the discrimination of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas (IPAs) among subsolid nodules (SSNs) was affected by the proportion of images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in datasets used for feature extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 60 patients (23 men and 37 women; mean age, 61.4 years) with 69 SSNs (54 part-solid and 15 pure ground-glass nodules). Preoperative CT scans were reconstructed with both FBP and MBIR. A total of 860 radiomics features were obtained from the entire nodule volume, and 70 resampled nodule datasets with an increasing proportion of nodules with MBIR-derived features (from 0/69 to 69/69) were prepared. After feature selection using neighborhood component analysis, support vector machines (SVMs) and an ensemble model were used as classifiers for the differentiation of IPAs. The diagnostic performances of all blending proportions of reconstruction algorithms were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS: The ROC AUC and the diagnostic accuracy of the radiomics models decreased significantly as the number of nodules with MBIR-derived features increased, and this relationship followed cubic functions (R2 = 0.993 and 0.926 for SVM; R2 = 0.993 and 0.975 for the ensemble model; p < 0.001). The magnitude of variation in AUC due to the reconstruction algorithm heterogeneity was 0.39 for SVM and 0.39 for the ensemble model. CONCLUSION: Inclusion of CT scans reconstructed with MBIR for radiomics modeling can significantly decrease diagnostic performance for the identification of IPAs.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the diagnostic performance of machine learning-based radiomics models for the discrimination of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas (IPAs) among subsolid nodules (SSNs) was affected by the proportion of images reconstructed with filtered back projection (FBP) and model-based iterative reconstruction (MBIR) in datasets used for feature extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 60 patients (23 men and 37 women; mean age, 61.4 years) with 69 SSNs (54 part-solid and 15 pure ground-glass nodules). Preoperative CT scans were reconstructed with both FBP and MBIR. A total of 860 radiomics features were obtained from the entire nodule volume, and 70 resampled nodule datasets with an increasing proportion of nodules with MBIR-derived features (from 0/69 to 69/69) were prepared. After feature selection using neighborhood component analysis, support vector machines (SVMs) and an ensemble model were used as classifiers for the differentiation of IPAs. The diagnostic performances of all blending proportions of reconstruction algorithms were calculated and analyzed. RESULTS: The ROC AUC and the diagnostic accuracy of the radiomics models decreased significantly as the number of nodules with MBIR-derived features increased, and this relationship followed cubic functions (R2 = 0.993 and 0.926 for SVM; R2 = 0.993 and 0.975 for the ensemble model; p < 0.001). The magnitude of variation in AUC due to the reconstruction algorithm heterogeneity was 0.39 for SVM and 0.39 for the ensemble model. CONCLUSION: Inclusion of CT scans reconstructed with MBIR for radiomics modeling can significantly decrease diagnostic performance for the identification of IPAs.
Authors: Philip M Adamson; Vrunda Bhattbhatt; Sara Principi; Surabhi Beriwal; Linda S Strain; Michael Offe; Adam S Wang; Nghia-Jack Vo; Taly Gilat Schmidt; Petr Jordan Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Nastaran Emaminejad; Muhammad Wasil Wahi-Anwar; Grace Hyun J Kim; William Hsu; Matthew Brown; Michael McNitt-Gray Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: John T Murchison; Gillian Ritchie; David Senyszak; Jeroen H Nijwening; Gerben van Veenendaal; Joris Wakkie; Edwin J R van Beek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.752