Publications poorly report the essential RadiOmics ParametERs (PROPER): A meta-research on quality of reporting

Abstract

PurposeTo investigate the quality of reporting in radiomics research, with a focus on the most basic technical parameters. MethodsA PubMed literature search was conducted to identify original studies on radiomics (last search: January 2, 2023). Following a sample size calculation with an a priori power analysis, a random sample of the radiomic literature was collected. In addition to baseline characteristics, the key aspects of radiomic software, resampling, and discretization were evaluated. Agreement between raters was analyzed. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. ResultsA sample of 87 publications was evaluated. Most publications (89%; 77/87) were retrospective. They were conducted predominantly with private data (87%; 76/87) at a single institution (77%; 67/87) without external validation (90%; 78/87). 69% (60/87) of the papers reported the radiomic software used (p < 0.001), with nearly half (43%; 26/60) omitting the version. 37% (32/87) reported the resampling size (p = 0.018), while 22% (7/32) did not report using iso-voxel resampling. 34% (30/87) reported the discretization parameters (p < 0.01), but more than three-quarters (77%; 23/30) did not experiment with different discretization parameters. A wide range of discretization parameter values were reported. Most papers (79%; 69/87) failed to report all three essential items simultaneously (p < 0.001). ConclusionEven the essential radiomic parameters that are usually displayed on the user interface of radiomic software tools were poorly reported in radiomics-related publications. This issue of transparency may require additional action from researchers, editors, and reviewers in the form of adopting more stringent reporting standards (e.g., checklists, guidelines).