Shu-Ju Tu1,2, Wei-Yuan Chen3,4, Chen-Te Wu3,4. 1. Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 259 Wen-Hua First Road, Kwei-Shan, Tao-Yuan, 333, Taiwan. sjtu@mail.cgu.edu.tw. 2. Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. sjtu@mail.cgu.edu.tw. 3. Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Sciences, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 259 Wen-Hua First Road, Kwei-Shan, Tao-Yuan, 333, Taiwan. 4. Department of Medical Imaging and Intervention, Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantum noise is a random process in X-ray-based imaging systems. We addressed and measured the uncertainty of radiomics features against this quantum noise in computed tomography (CT) images. METHODS: A clinical multi-detector CT scanner, two homogeneous phantom sets, and four heterogeneous samples were used. A solid tumor tissue removed from a male BALB/c mouse was included. We the placed phantom sets on the CT scanning table and repeated 20 acquisitions with identical imaging settings. Regions of interest were delineated for feature extraction. Statistical quantities-average, standard deviation, and percentage uncertainty-were calculated from these 20 repeated scans. Percentage uncertainty was used to measure and quantify feature stability against quantum noise. Twelve radiomics features were measured. Random noise was added to study the robustness of machine learning classifiers against feature uncertainty. RESULTS: We found the ranges of percentage uncertainties from homogeneous soft tissue phantoms, homogeneous bone phantoms, and solid tumor tissue to be 0.01-2138%, 0.02-15%, and 0.18-16%, respectively. Overall, it was found that the CT features ShortRunHighGrayLevelEmpha (SRHGE) (0.01-0.18%), ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmpha (SRLGE) (0.01-0.41%), LowGrayLevelRunEmpha (LGRE) (0.01-0.39%), and LongRunLowGrayLevelEmpha (LRLGE) (0.02-0.66%) were the most stable features against the inherent quantum noise. The most unstable features were cluster shade (1-2138%) and max probability (1-16%). The impact of random noise to the prediction accuracy by different machine learning classifiers was found to be between 0 and 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve features were used for uncertainty measurements. The upper and lower bounds of percentage uncertainties were determined. The quantum noise effect on machine learning classifiers is model dependent. KEY POINTS: • Quantum noise is a random process and is intrinsic to X-ray-based imaging systems. This inherent quantum noise creates unpredictable fluctuations in the gray-level intensities of image pixels. Extra cautions and further validations are strongly recommended when unstable radiomics features are selected by a predictive model for disease classification or treatment outcome prognosis. • We addressed and used the statistical quantity of percentage uncertainty to measure the uncertainty of radiomics features against the inherent quantum noise in computed tomography (CT) images. • A clinical multi-detector CT scanner, two homogeneous phantom sets, and four heterogeneous samples were used in the stability measurement. A solid tumor tissue removed from a male BALB/c mouse was included in the heterogeneous sample.
OBJECTIVES: Quantum noise is a random process in X-ray-based imaging systems. We addressed and measured the uncertainty of radiomics features against this quantum noise in computed tomography (CT) images. METHODS: A clinical multi-detector CT scanner, two homogeneous phantom sets, and four heterogeneous samples were used. A solid tumor tissue removed from a male BALB/c mouse was included. We the placed phantom sets on the CT scanning table and repeated 20 acquisitions with identical imaging settings. Regions of interest were delineated for feature extraction. Statistical quantities-average, standard deviation, and percentage uncertainty-were calculated from these 20 repeated scans. Percentage uncertainty was used to measure and quantify feature stability against quantum noise. Twelve radiomics features were measured. Random noise was added to study the robustness of machine learning classifiers against feature uncertainty. RESULTS: We found the ranges of percentage uncertainties from homogeneous soft tissue phantoms, homogeneous bone phantoms, and solid tumor tissue to be 0.01-2138%, 0.02-15%, and 0.18-16%, respectively. Overall, it was found that the CT features ShortRunHighGrayLevelEmpha (SRHGE) (0.01-0.18%), ShortRunLowGrayLevelEmpha (SRLGE) (0.01-0.41%), LowGrayLevelRunEmpha (LGRE) (0.01-0.39%), and LongRunLowGrayLevelEmpha (LRLGE) (0.02-0.66%) were the most stable features against the inherent quantum noise. The most unstable features were cluster shade (1-2138%) and max probability (1-16%). The impact of random noise to the prediction accuracy by different machine learning classifiers was found to be between 0 and 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve features were used for uncertainty measurements. The upper and lower bounds of percentage uncertainties were determined. The quantum noise effect on machine learning classifiers is model dependent. KEY POINTS: • Quantum noise is a random process and is intrinsic to X-ray-based imaging systems. This inherent quantum noise creates unpredictable fluctuations in the gray-level intensities of image pixels. Extra cautions and further validations are strongly recommended when unstable radiomics features are selected by a predictive model for disease classification or treatment outcome prognosis. • We addressed and used the statistical quantity of percentage uncertainty to measure the uncertainty of radiomics features against the inherent quantum noise in computed tomography (CT) images. • A clinical multi-detector CT scanner, two homogeneous phantom sets, and four heterogeneous samples were used in the stability measurement. A solid tumor tissue removed from a male BALB/c mouse was included in the heterogeneous sample.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health care quality assurance; Medical informatics computing; Radiomics; Uncertainty; X-ray computed tomography
Authors: Manuel Weber; Lukas Kessler; Benedikt Schaarschmidt; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Harald Lahner; Gerald Antoch; Lale Umutlu; Ken Herrmann; Christoph Rischpler Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Paul Giraud; Philippe Giraud; Anne Gasnier; Radouane El Ayachy; Sarah Kreps; Jean-Philippe Foy; Catherine Durdux; Florence Huguet; Anita Burgun; Jean-Emmanuel Bibault Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Hugo J W L Aerts; Emmanuel Rios Velazquez; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Chintan Parmar; Patrick Grossmann; Sara Carvalho; Sara Cavalho; Johan Bussink; René Monshouwer; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Derek Rietveld; Frank Hoebers; Michelle M Rietbergen; C René Leemans; Andre Dekker; John Quackenbush; Robert J Gillies; Philippe Lambin Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Chad Tang; Brian Hobbs; Ahmed Amer; Xiao Li; Carmen Behrens; Jaime Rodriguez Canales; Edwin Parra Cuentas; Pamela Villalobos; David Fried; Joe Y Chang; David S Hong; James W Welsh; Boris Sepesi; Laurence Court; Ignacio I Wistuba; Eugene J Koay Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.379