| Literature DB >> 31395937 |
Kyle J Lafata1,2, Zhennan Zhou3, Jian-Guo Liu4,5, Julian Hong6, Chris R Kelsey6, Fang-Fang Yin7.
Abstract
Contemporary medical imaging is becoming increasingly more quantitative. The emerging field of radiomics is a leading example. By translating unstructured data (i.e., images) into structured data (i.e., imaging features), radiomics can potentially characterize clinically useful imaging phenotypes. In this paper, an exploratory radiomics approach is used to investigate the potential association between quantitative imaging features and pulmonary function in CT images. Thirty-nine radiomic features were extracted from the lungs of 64 patients as potential imaging biomarkers for pulmonary function. Collectively, these features capture the morphology of the lungs, as well as intensity variations, fine-texture, and coarse-texture of the pulmonary tissue. The extracted lung radiomics data was compared to conventional pulmonary function tests. In general, patients with larger lungs of homogeneous, low attenuating pulmonary tissue (as measured via radiomics) were found to be associated with poor spirometry performance and a lower diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide. Unsupervised dynamic data clustering revealed subsets of patients with similar lung radiomic patterns that were found to be associated with similar forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) measurements. This implies that patients with similar radiomic feature vectors also presented with comparable spirometry performance, and were separable by varying degrees of pulmonary function as measured by imaging.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31395937 PMCID: PMC6687824 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-48023-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Pulmonary radiomic feature space design. (A) Radiomic features are extracted from CT-segmented lungs to derive a feature space, . (B) is mathematically defined as a (39 x 64)-dimensional matrix. The coordinate of represents the measured value of the i feature as observed within the image of the j patient. (C) The features used to construct , color coded by class.
Univariate Correlation of Radiomics Data with Pulmonary Function Tests.
| Feature | Correlation Coefficient | p-value |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| p = 0.011 | |
|
| p = 0.008 | |
|
| ||
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p = 0.002 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| ||
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p = 0.026 | |
|
| p = 0.002 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p = 0.025 | |
|
| p = 0.019 | |
|
| p = 0.004 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p = 0.009 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| ||
|
| p = 0.018 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p = 0.001 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| p = 0.007 | |
|
| p < 0.001 | |
|
| ||
|
| p = 0.002 | |
|
| p = 0.006 | |
Figure 2Dynamic clustering of pulmonary radiomics data with Langevin Annealing. The location of each patient’s radiomic vector is plotted in blue, relative to a projection of the potential surface generated from the radiomics data at σ = 0.08. Five sequential time frames are included to demonstrate the dynamic clustering process, which results in 3 distinct clusters (, , ). The red arrows represent the Langevin net-force that each radiomic vector is subject to as a function of space and time.
Figure 3Bi-clustering of the Euclidean radiomic feature space. (A) The radiomic feature space is represented as a matrix, , where column vectors denote the radiomic feature vectors of each patient, and row vectors denote a particular feature measurement made across the patient cohort. The feature space has been sorted according to the 3 unique clusters (, , ) found via Langevin Annealing (Fig. 2). Each cluster corresponds to a statistically significant median FEV value, indicating that patients with similar radiomic lung signatures also presented with similar spirometry measurements. (B) Illustrating examples of CT images taken from each of the three identified clusters.
Cluster-by-cluster breakdown of FEV values according to the GOLD standard.
| Percentage of Predicted FEV1 Value | Percentage of patients in | Percentage of patients in | Percentage of patients in |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18% | 6% | 0% | |
| 55% | 39% | 16% | |
| 27% | 44% | 42% | |
| 0% | 11% | 42% |