Update report on the quality of gliomas radiomics: An integration of bibliometric and radiomics quality score

Table 1 Top 10 journals related to gliomas radiomics

Rank	Journal (country)	Count	IF (2022)	JCR (2022)	Total citations
1	Neuro-Oncology (United States)	63	15.9	Q1	906
2	Frontiers in Oncology (Switzerland)	62	4.7	Q2	372
3	Cancers (United States)	46	5.2	Q2	190
4	European Radiology (Germany)	44	5.9	Q1	920
5	Scientific Reports (England)	41	4.6	Q2	1483
6	Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (United States)	20	4.4	Q1	532
7	American Journal of Neuroradiology (United States)	19	3.5	Q2	483
8	Medical Physics (United States)	18	3.8	Q2	102
9	Journal of Neuro-Oncology (United States)	17	3.9	Q2	287
10	International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics (United States)	15	7	Q1	71

IF: Impact factor; JCR: Journal citation report.

Table 2 Basic adherence rate according to the six key domains

Radiomics quality score	Basic adherence rate (%)
Total 16 items	46.80
Domain 1: Protocol quality and stability in image and segmentation	99.20
Protocol quality	98.80
Test-retest	36.90
Phantom study	10.40
Multiple segmentation	33.10
Domain 2: Feature selection and validation	79.60
Feature reduction or adjustment of multiple testing	98.80
Validation	79.6
Domain 3: Biologic/clinical validation and utility	77.70
Multivariate analysis with non-radiomics features	67.30
Biologic correlates	27.70
Comparison to “gold standard”	5.80
Potential clinical utility 1	18.10
Domain 4: Model performance index	98.50
Discrimination statistics	97.30
Calibration statistics	60.80
Cut-off analysis	54.60
Domain 5: High level of evidence	1.50
Prospective study	0.40
Cost-effective analysis	1.10
Domain 6: Open science and data	58.10

Table 3 Subgroup analysis in journal types, median (interquartile range)

Radiomics quality score	Median score	Imaging journals	Clinical journals	Comprehensive journals	P value
Total 36 points	11 (9–14)	11 (8.25–14)	12 (9–16)	11.5 (8–15)	0.379
Domain 1: Protocol quality and stability in image and segmentation (0 to 5 points)	1 (1–2)	1 (1–2)	2 (1–2)	1 (1–2)	0.039
Image protocol quality (2)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	0.201
Multiple segmentations (1)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–0.25)	0.03
Phantom study on all scanners (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.205
Imaging at multiple time points (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.383
Domain 2: Feature selection and validation (-8 to 8 points)	5 (5–6)	5 (5–6)	5 (5–6)	5 (1–2)	0.553
Feature reduction or adjustment for multiple testing (-3 or 3)	3 (3–3)	3 (3–3)	3 (3–3)	3 (3–3)	0.539
Validation (-5, 2, 3, 4, or 5)	2 (2–3)	2 (2–3)	2 (2–3)	2 (1.5–2.25)	0.585
Domain 3: Biologic/clinical validation and utility (0 to 6points)	1 (1–2)	1 (0.25–2)	1 (1–2)	1 (0–2)	0.613
Multivariable analysis with non-radiomics features (1)	1 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	0.059
Detect and discuss biological correlates (1)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	0.075
Comparison to ‘gold standard’ (2)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.669
Potential clinical utility (2)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.628
Domain 4: Model performance index (0 to 5 points)	3 (2–4)	3 (2–4)	3 (2–4)	3 (2–5)	0.315
Cut-off analyses (1)	1 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	0.101
Discrimination statistics (2)	2 (1–2)	2 (1.5–2)	2 (1–2)	2 (1.75–2)	0.071
Calibration statistics (2)	1 (0–2)	1 (0–2)	1 (0–2)	0.5 (0–2)	0.175
Domain 5: High level of evidence (0 to 8 points)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.588
Prospective study registered in a trial database (7)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.435
Cost-effectiveness analysis (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.236
Domain 6: Open science and data (0 to 4 points)	0.653 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	0.5 (0–2)	0.649

Table 4 Subgroup analysis in the goal of research, median (interquartile range)

Radiomics quality score	Differential diagnosis	Treatment response	Prognosis prediction	Grading or molecular typing	P value
Total 36 points	10 (8–13)	11 (8–14)	13 (11–15)	11 (9–15)	0
Domain 1: Protocol quality and stability in image and segmentation (0 to 5 points)	2 (1–2)	2 (1–2)	1 (1–2)	1 (1–2)	0.006
Image protocol quality (2)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	1 (1–1)	< 0.001
Multiple segmentations (1)	1 (1–1)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–0.75)	1 (0–1)	< 0.001
Phantom study on all scanners (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.002
Imaging at multiple time points (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.36
Domain 2: Feature selection and validation (-8 to 8 points)	5 (–2–5)	5 (–2–6)	5 (5–6)	5 (5–5)	0.012
Feature reduction or adjustment for multiple testing (-3 or 3)	3 (3–3)	3 (3–3)	3 (3–3)	3 (3–3)	0.601
Validation (-5, 2, 3, 4, or 5)	2 (–5–2)	2 (2–2)	2 (2–3)	2 (–5–3)	0.007
Domain 3: Biologic/clinical validation and utility (0 to 6 points)	2 (0–2)	1 (1–2)	1 (1–2)	2 (0–2)	0.18
Multivariable analysis with non-radiomics features (1)	0 (0–0)	1 (0–1)	1 (1–1)	1 (0–1)	< 0.001
Detect and discuss biological correlates (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (–0–1)	0 (0–1)	0.001
Comparison to ‘gold standard’ (2)	0 (0–2)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	< 0.001
Potential clinical utility (2)	0 (0–2)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.032
Domain 4: Model performance index (0 to 5 points)	2 (2–2)	3 (2–4)	4 (3–5)	3 (2–4)	< 0.001
Cut-off analyses (1)	0 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	1 (1–1)	0 (0–1)	< 0.001
Discrimination statistics (2)	2 (1.5–2)	2 (2–2)	2 (1–2)	2 (1–2)	0.049
Calibration statistics (2)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–2)	0 (1–2)	0 (0–2)	< 0.001
Domain 5: High level of evidence (0 to 8 points)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.001
Prospective study registered in a trial database (7)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0.148
Cost-effectiveness analysis (1)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0)	< 0.001
Domain 6: Open science and data (0 to 4 points)	0 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	1 (0–1)	0 (0–1)	0.016