An Overview of Meta-analyses on Radiomics: More Evidence is Needed to Support Clinical Translation

Overview

Journal Insights Imaging

Publisher Springer

Specialty Radiology

Date 2023 Jun 19

PMID 37336830

Authors

Jingyu Zhong

Junjie Lu

Guangcheng Zhang

Shiqi Mao

Haoda Chen

Qian Yin

Yangfan Hu

Yue Xing

Defang Ding

Xiang Ge

Huan Zhang

Weiwu Yao

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To conduct an overview of meta-analyses of radiomics studies assessing their study quality and evidence level.

Methods: A systematical search was updated via peer-reviewed electronic databases, preprint servers, and systematic review protocol registers until 15 November 2022. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of primary radiomics studies were included. Their reporting transparency, methodological quality, and risk of bias were assessed by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist, AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2) tool, and ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool, respectively. The evidence level supporting the radiomics for clinical use was rated.

Results: We identified 44 systematic reviews with meta-analyses on radiomics research. The mean ± standard deviation of PRISMA adherence rate was 65 ± 9%. The AMSTAR-2 tool rated 5 and 39 systematic reviews as low and critically low confidence, respectively. The ROBIS assessment resulted low, unclear and high risk in 5, 11, and 28 systematic reviews, respectively. We reperformed 53 meta-analyses in 38 included systematic reviews. There were 3, 7, and 43 meta-analyses rated as convincing, highly suggestive, and weak levels of evidence, respectively. The convincing level of evidence was rated in (1) T2-FLAIR radiomics for IDH-mutant vs IDH-wide type differentiation in low-grade glioma, (2) CT radiomics for COVID-19 vs other viral pneumonia differentiation, and (3) MRI radiomics for high-grade glioma vs brain metastasis differentiation.

Conclusions: The systematic reviews on radiomics were with suboptimal quality. A limited number of radiomics approaches were supported by convincing level of evidence.

Clinical Relevance Statement: The evidence supporting the clinical application of radiomics are insufficient, calling for researches translating radiomics from an academic tool to a practicable adjunct towards clinical deployment.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Reporting Quality Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2020 in Systematic Reviews of Emergency Medicine Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Suda C, Yamamoto N, Tsuge T, Hayashi M, Suzuki K, Ikuta Y Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e78255.

PMID: 40027066 PMC: 11871967. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.78255.

Two independent studies, one goal, one conclusion: radiomics research quality under the microscope.

Kocak B, Barry N Eur Radiol. 2025; .

PMID: 39969556 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11457-9.

Reproducibility of methodological radiomics score (METRICS): an intra- and inter-rater reliability study endorsed by EuSoMII.

Akinci DAntonoli T, Cavallo A, Kocak B, Borgheresi A, Ponsiglione A, Stanzione A Eur Radiol. 2025; .

PMID: 39969552 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11443-1.

Robustness of radiomics within photon-counting detector CT: impact of acquisition and reconstruction factors.

Zhang H, Lu T, Wang L, Xing Y, Hu Y, Xu Z Eur Radiol. 2025; .

PMID: 39890616 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-025-11374-x.

Overlooked and underpowered: a meta-research addressing sample size in radiomics prediction models for binary outcomes.

Zhong J, Liu X, Lu J, Yang J, Zhang G, Mao S Eur Radiol. 2025; 35(3):1146-1156.

PMID: 39789271 PMC: 11835977. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-11331-0.

References

Lambin P, Rios-Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, Carvalho S, van Stiphout R, Granton P . Radiomics: extracting more information from medical images using advanced feature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012; 48(4):441-6. PMC: 4533986. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.036. View

Tomaszewski M, Gillies R . The Biological Meaning of Radiomic Features. Radiology. 2021; 298(3):505-516. PMC: 7924519. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2021202553. View

Gillies R, Kinahan P, Hricak H . Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology. 2015; 278(2):563-77. PMC: 4734157. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015151169. View

Lambin P, Leijenaar R, Deist T, Peerlings J, de Jong E, van Timmeren J . Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017; 14(12):749-762. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.141. View

OConnor J, Aboagye E, Adams J, Aerts H, Barrington S, Beer A . Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016; 14(3):169-186. PMC: 5378302. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.162. View

van Timmeren J, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S, Alkadhi H, Baessler B . Radiomics in medical imaging-"how-to" guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging. 2020; 11(1):91. PMC: 7423816. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2. View

Song J, Yin Y, Wang H, Chang Z, Liu Z, Cui L . A review of original articles published in the emerging field of radiomics. Eur J Radiol. 2020; 127:108991. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108991. View

Pinto Dos Santos D, Dietzel M, Baessler B . A decade of radiomics research: are images really data or just patterns in the noise?. Eur Radiol. 2020; 31(1):1-4. PMC: 7755615. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07108-w. View

Dewey M, Bosserdt M, Dodd J, Thun S, Kressel H . Clinical Imaging Research: Higher Evidence, Global Collaboration, Improved Reporting, and Data Sharing Are the Grand Challenges. Radiology. 2019; 291(3):547-552. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181796. View

10.

Halligan S, Menu Y, Mallett S . Why did European Radiology reject my radiomic biomarker paper? How to correctly evaluate imaging biomarkers in a clinical setting. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(12):9361-9368. PMC: 8589811. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07971-1. View

11.

Fournier L, Costaridou L, Bidaut L, Michoux N, Lecouvet F, de Geus-Oei L . Incorporating radiomics into clinical trials: expert consensus endorsed by the European Society of Radiology on considerations for data-driven compared to biologically driven quantitative biomarkers. Eur Radiol. 2021; 31(8):6001-6012. PMC: 8270834. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07598-8. View

12.

Moskowitz C, Welch M, Jacobs M, Kurland B, Simpson A . Radiomic Analysis: Study Design, Statistical Analysis, and Other Bias Mitigation Strategies. Radiology. 2022; 304(2):265-273. PMC: 9340236. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.211597. View

13.

Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L . An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2010; 377(9760):108-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8. View

14.

Sollini M, Antunovic L, Chiti A, Kirienko M . Towards clinical application of image mining: a systematic review on artificial intelligence and radiomics. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019; 46(13):2656-2672. PMC: 6879445. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-019-04372-x. View

15.

Ponsiglione A, Stanzione A, Spadarella G, Baran A, Cappellini L, Groot Lipman K . Ovarian imaging radiomics quality score assessment: an EuSoMII radiomics auditing group initiative. Eur Radiol. 2022; 33(3):2239-2247. PMC: 9935717. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-09180-w. View

16.

Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Fernandes R . Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: a discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evid Based Child Health. 2014; 9(2):486-94. DOI: 10.1002/ebch.1968. View

17.

Pollock A, Campbell P, Brunton G, Hunt H, Estcourt L . Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Syst Rev. 2017; 6(1):145. PMC: 5516331. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3. View

18.

Bougioukas K, Liakos A, Tsapas A, Ntzani E, Haidich A . Preferred reporting items for overviews of systematic reviews including harms checklist: a pilot tool to be used for balanced reporting of benefits and harms. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 93:9-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.002. View

19.

Fusar-Poli P, Radua J . Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid Based Ment Health. 2018; 21(3):95-100. PMC: 10270421. DOI: 10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014. View

20.

Page M, McKenzie J, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow C . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372:n71. PMC: 8005924. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71. View