Self-reported checklists and quality scoring tools in radiomics: a meta-research

ConclusionRadiomic publications often lack self-reported checklists or quality scoring tools. Even when such documents are provided, it is essential to be cautious, as the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable.Clinical relevance statementCurrent state of radiomic literature reveals a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation and inaccurate reporting practices. This critical observation may serve as a catalyst for motivating the radiomics community to adopt and utilize such tools appropriately, thereby fostering rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of their research, moving the field forward.Key Points•In radiomics literature, there has been a notable absence of self-reporting with documentation.•Even if such documents are provided, it is critical to exercise caution because the accuracy of the reported items or scores may be questionable.•Radiomics community needs to be motivated to adopt and appropriately utilize the reporting checklists and quality scoring tools.Graphical Abstract
Source: European Radiology - Category: Radiology Source Type: research