Abstract
AIM: Despite a vast number of articles on radiomics and machine learning in positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, clinical applicability remains limited, partly owing to poor methodological quality. We therefore systematically investigated the methodology described in publications on radiomics and machine learning for PET-based outcome prediction. METHODS: A systematic search for original articles was run on PubMed. All articles were rated according to 17 criteria proposed by the authors. Criteria with >2 rating categories were binarized into "adequate" or "inadequate". The association between the number of "adequate" criteria per article and the date of publication was examined. RESULTS: One hundred articles were identified (published between 07/2017 and 09/2023). The median proportion of articles per criterion that were rated "adequate" was 65% (range: 23-98%). Nineteen articles (19%) mentioned neither a test cohort nor cross-validation to separate training from testing. The median number of criteria with an "adequate" rating per article was 12.5 out of 17 (range, 4-17), and this did not increase with later dates of publication (Spearman's rho, 0.094; p = 0.35). In 22 articles (22%), less than half of the items were rated "adequate". Only 8% of articles published the source code, and 10% made the dataset openly available. CONCLUSION: Among the articles investigated, methodological weaknesses have been identified, and the degree of compliance with recommendations on methodological quality and reporting shows potential for improvement. Better adherence to established guidelines could increase the clinical significance of radiomics and machine learning for PET-based outcome prediction and finally lead to the widespread use in routine clinical practice.