Variations in algorithm implementation among quantitative texture analysis software packages

Joseph J. Foy; Prerana Mitta; Lauren R. Nowosatka; Kayla R. Mendel; Hui Li; Maryellen L. Giger; Hania Al-Hallaq; Samuel G. Armato III

doi:10.1117/12.2292573

27 February 2018 Variations in algorithm implementation among quantitative texture analysis software packages

Joseph J. Foy, Prerana Mitta, Lauren R. Nowosatka, Kayla R. Mendel, Hui Li, Maryellen L. Giger, Hania Al-Hallaq, Samuel G. Armato III

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 10575, Medical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided Diagnosis; 105751K (2018) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2292573
Event: SPIE Medical Imaging, 2018, Houston, Texas, United States

Abstract

Open-source texture analysis software allows for the advancement of radiomics research. Variations in texture features, however, result from discrepancies in algorithm implementation. Anatomically matched regions of interest (ROIs) that captured normal breast parenchyma were placed in the magnetic resonance images (MRI) of 20 patients at two time points. Six first-order features and six gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) features were calculated for each ROI using four texture analysis packages. Features were extracted using package-specific default GLCM parameters and using GLCM parameters modified to yield the greatest consistency among packages. Relative change in the value of each feature between time points was calculated for each ROI. Distributions of relative feature value differences were compared across packages. Absolute agreement among feature values was quantified by the intra-class correlation coefficient. Among first-order features, significant differences were found for max, range, and mean, and only kurtosis showed poor agreement. All six second-order features showed significant differences using package-specific default GLCM parameters, and five second-order features showed poor agreement; with modified GLCM parameters, no significant differences among second-order features were found, and all second-order features showed poor agreement. While relative texture change discrepancies existed across packages, these differences were not significant when consistent parameters were used.

Conference Presentation

Citation Download Citation

Joseph J. Foy, Prerana Mitta, Lauren R. Nowosatka, Kayla R. Mendel, Hui Li, Maryellen L. Giger, Hania Al-Hallaq, and Samuel G. Armato III "Variations in algorithm implementation among quantitative texture analysis software packages", Proc. SPIE 10575, Medical Imaging 2018: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 105751K (27 February 2018); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2292573

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available