Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025
Guidelines and Experience Using Imaging Biomarker Explorer IBEX for Radiomics
Published on: January 8, 2018
Evaluating the impact of the Radiomics Quality Score: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Nathaniel Barry1,2, Jake Kendrick3,4,5, Kaylee Molin3
1School of Physics, Mathematics and Computing, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia. Nathaniel.barry@research.uwa.edu.au.
Objectives:
Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the application of the Radiomics Quality Score (RQS).
Materials And Methods:
A search was conducted from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, for systematic reviews which implemented the RQS. Identification of articles prior to 2022 was via a previously published review. Quality scores of individual radiomics papers, their associated criteria scores, and these scores from all readers were extracted. Errors in the application of RQS criteria were noted and corrected. The RQS of radiomics papers were matched with the publication date, imaging modality, and country, where available.
Results:
A total of 130 systematic reviews were included, and individual quality scores 117/130 (90.0%), criteria scores 98/130 (75.4%), and multiple reader data 24/130 (18.5%) were extracted. 3258 quality scores were correlated with the radiomics study date of publication. Criteria scoring errors were discovered in 39/98 (39.8%) of articles. Overall mean RQS was 9.4 ± 6.4 (95% CI, 9.1-9.6) (26.1% ± 17.8% (25.3%-26.7%)). Quality scores were positively correlated with publication year (Pearson R = 0.32, p < 0.01) and significantly higher after publication of the RQS (year < 2018, 5.6 ± 6.1 (5.1-6.1); year ≥ 2018, 10.1 ± 6.1 (9.9-10.4); p < 0.01). Only 233/3258 (7.2%) scores were ≥ 50% of the maximum RQS. Quality scores were significantly different across imaging modalities (p < 0.01). Ten criteria were positively correlated with publication year, and one was negatively correlated.
Conclusion:
Radiomics study adherence to the RQS is increasing with time, although a vast majority of studies are developmental and rarely provide a high level of evidence to justify the clinical translation of proposed models.
Key Points:
Question What level of adherence to the Radiomics Quality Score have radiomics studies achieved to date, has it increased with time, and is it sufficient? Findings A meta-analysis of 3258 quality scores extracted from 130 review articles resulted in a mean score of 9.4 ± 6.4. Quality scores were positively correlated with time. Clinical relevance Although quality scores of radiomics studies have increased with time, many studies have not demonstrated sufficient evidence for clinical translation. As new appraisal tools emerge, the current role of the Radiomics Quality Score may change.
