High-Dimensional Multinomial Multiclass Severity Scoring of COVID-19 Pneumonia Using CT Radiomics Features and Machine Learning Algorithms

Isaac Shiri, Shayan Mostafaei, Atlas Haddadi Avval, Yazdan Salimi, Amirhossein Sanaat, Azadeh Akhavanallaf, Hossein Arabi, Arman Rahmim, Habib Zaidi
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.27.22274369

Abstract

We aimed to construct a prediction model based on computed tomography (CT) radiomics features to classify COVID-19 patients into severe-, moderate-, mild-, and non-pneumonic. A total of 1110 patients were studied from a publicly available dataset with 4-class severity scoring performed by a radiologist (based on CT images and clinical features). CT scans were preprocessed with bin discretization and resized, followed by segmentation of the entire lung and extraction of radiomics features. We utilized two feature selection algorithms, namely Bagging Random Forest (BRF) and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS), each coupled to a classifier, namely multinomial logistic regression (MLR), to construct multiclass classification models. Subsequently, 10-fold cross-validation with bootstrapping (n=1000) was performed to validate the classification results. The performance of multi-class models was assessed using precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy based on the 4×4 confusion matrices. In addition, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUCs) for multi-class classifications were calculated and compared for both models using “multiROC” and “pROC” R packages. Using BRF, 19 radiomics features were selected, 9 from first-order, 6 from GLCM, 1 from GLDM, 1 from shape, 1 from NGTDM, and 1 from GLSZM radiomics features. Ten features were selected using the MARS algorithm, namely 2 from first-order, 1 from GLDM, 2 from GLRLM, 2 from GLSZM, and 3 from GLCM features. The Mean Absolute Deviation and Median from first-order, Small Area Emphasis from GLSZM, and Correlation from GLCM features were selected by both BRF and MARS algorithms. Except for the Inverse Variance feature from GLCM, all selected features by BRF or MARS were significantly associated with four-class outcomes as assessed within MLR (All p-values<0.05). BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR resulted in pseudo-R2 prediction performances of 0.295 and 0.256, respectively. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences between the feature selection models when using a likelihood ratio test (p-value =0.319). Based on confusion matrices for BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR algorithms, the precision was 0.861 and 0.825, the recall was 0.844 and 0.793, whereas the accuracy was 0.933 and 0.922, respectively. AUCs (95% CI)) for multi-class classification were 0.823 (0.795-0.852) and 0.816 (0.788-0.844) for BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR algorithms, respectively. Our models based on the utilization of radiomics features, coupled with machine learning, were able to accurately classify patients according to the severity of pneumonia, thus highlighting the potential of this emerging paradigm in the prognostication and management of COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION

The highly contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to significant morbidity and mortality worldwide 1. Pneumonia is regarded as one of the main complications of COVID-19 disease, which can lead to lethal conditions while escalating the cost of healthcare 2. The most popular diagnostic test considered as the gold standard for coronavirus disease is the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay 3. While highly specific, RT-PCR has shown low sensitivity, as studies have reported significant false-negatives in patients who had abnormalities in their chest CT images confirmed with secondary follow-up RT-PCR to be positive for COVID-19 4.

CT aids in the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 patients and could be potentially used as an outcome/survival prediction tool, towards enhanced treatment planning 5-7. CT scanning has been utilized as a highly sensitive tool for COVID-19 diagnosis 8 since it is fast and generates quantifiable features (e.g., the extent to which lung lobes are involved) and non-quantifiable features (e.g., ground-glass opacities and their laterality) to assess COVID-19 pneumonia, besides the enhanced sensitivity compared to RT-PCR 9.

Severity can be defined as an index that depicts the effects of a disease on mortality, morbidity, and comorbidities 10 and has the potential to help physicians manage the patients more decently whether in patients with cancer or with non-cancer diseases 11,12. A number of severity scoring systems have been proposed to quantify disease advancement in patients, including general assessments (e.g., APACHE score) and disease-specific ones (e.g., Child-Pugh score) 13. Several conventional scoring systems have been proposed for COVID-19 severity assessment 14. These include the usage of patient clinical, comorbidity, and laboratory data, which are all helpful in constructing predictive models for severity assessment in COVID-19 15.

There has also been a growing interest in using imaging data of patients, such as thoracic CT images. For example, a study by Sanders et al. 16 computed the score of CT images in patients with cystic fibrosis and evaluated the prognostic ability. A promising line of research that emerged recently reported on the CT severity index and its correlation with acute pancreatitis severity 17-19. The COVID-19 Reporting and Data System (CO-RADS) was suggested for standardized visual assessment of COVID-19 pneumonia to enhance agreement between radiologists 20. This system includes features for the diagnosis of COVID-19 and consists of a 5-point scale for categorizing patient CT images. In addition, other guidelines aiming to reach consensus when interpreting COVID-19 suspected chest CT images were proposed 21. These guidelines are mostly based on visual assessment of images; e.g. the amount to which lung lobes are involved, the volume of which is infected, and anatomical assessments.

Francone et al. 22 reported a study on the correlation between CT score and the severity of coronavirus disease. Zhao et al. 23 also conducted research on the measurement of the extent to which lung lobes are infected and evaluation in COVID-19 patients’ prognosis. Li et al. 24 also confirmed the association between chest CT score and COVID-19 pneumonia severity. At the same time, most scoring systems involve visual assessment and hence are time-consuming 23,24. In this regard, medical image analysis using machine learning and radiomics has been applied to quantify features to tackle these main challenges 25-35.

The field of radiomics opens pathways for the study of normal tissues, cancer, and many other diseases, including potentially the newly emerging COVID-19 disease 6,7,29,36-40. Specifically, Xie et al. 41 evaluated the potential of a radiomics framework to diagnose COVID-19 from CT images. Di et al. 42 also studied whether radiomics features can help to distinguish between pneumonia of COVID-19 and that of other viral/bacterial causes. A number of studies reported on the application of radiomics analysis to CT images towards COVID-19 classification and prognostication43. Homayounieh et al. 44 assessed the prognostic power of CT-based radiomics features to determine severe and non-severe cases. In another study, Li et al. 45 proposed a radiomics model based on CT images and classified patients based on the criticality of their disease. A recent study by Yip et al. 46 applied a robust radiomics model to CT images to predict the severity of COVID-19 disease in patients. All above models pursued binary task performance, which reduced multiclass classification to two class approaches. However, in the real clinical triage situation, scoring systems consist of multi-class datasets. In the present study, involving a large cohort of patients, we aimed to construct a CT radiomics-based multi-class classification model to predict the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data Description

Figure 1 presents the different steps performed in this study. All experiments were performed in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

Different steps of current study. GGO : ground glass opacities, T: Temperature, RR: Respiratory Rate, SpO2: Peripheral Capillary Oxygen Saturation, PaO2: Partial Pressure of Oxygen. FiO2=Fraction of Inspired Oxygen.

Datasets and Segmentation

This study is based on the MosMed Dataset (mosmed.ai) consisting of 1110 patient CT scans, also utilized in other efforts 46,47. Ethics approval and consent to participate were not needed since the study was preformed on open access online dataset. The patients were referred to the Municipal Hospital in Moscow, Russia, and were classified based on clinical and visual CT findings as follows.

In the zero class, the patient has neither clinical symptoms (e.g. fever) nor CT findings in favor of any kind of pneumonia (Class 0, non-pneumonic). The 1st class contains patients who have a low-temperature fever (t < 38 °C) in addition to a mild increase in respiratory rate (RR <20) while showing none or < 25% ground-glass opacity (GGO) involvement (Class 1, COVID-19 with mild severity). Patients in the 2nd class have a higher body temperature (t > 38.5 °C) with a RR of 20-30, while CT scan shows 25-50% involvement of lung parenchyma (Class 2, COVID-19 with moderate severity). Patients in the 3rd class have high body temperature and RR of 30 or more, with CT findings of 50% to diffuse involvement in addition to organ failure and shock signs (Class 3, severe COVID-19). Each of the classes, namely 0, 1, 2, and 3, included 254, 684, 125, and 47 patients, respectively. The median age was 47 (ranging from 18 to 97), and 42% of patients were female. Figure 2 shows an example of representative CT images for each class.

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Example of patient CT images for different class.

All CT images were automatically segmented using a deep learning-based algorithm for whole lung segmentation 48,49. After whole-lung 3D segmentation, all images were reviewed and modified to ensure correct 3D-volume lung segmentation.

Image Preprocessing and Feature Extraction

All images were resized to isotropic voxel size 1×1×1 mm3 and image intensity was discretized by 64-gray level binning, followed by feature extraction. The extracted features from the whole-lung segmented regions, totalling 110, included shape (n=16), intensity (n=19), and texture features, namely second-order texture of gray-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM, n=24), and high-order features, namely gray-level size-zone matrix (GLSZM, n=16), neighbouring gray tone difference matrix (NGTDM, n=5), gray-level run-length matrix (GLRLM, n=16) and gray-level dependence matrix (GLDM, n=14). Radiomics feature extraction was performed using the Pyradiomics Python library 50, which is compliant with the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI) 51.

Feature Selection and Classification and Evaluation

In this study, we used two different feature selection algorithms, including Bagging Random Forests (BRF) 52 and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) 53. BRF and MARS algorithms were implemented in “VSURF” and “earth” R packages, respectively. For multiclass classification, we implemented multinomial logistic regression using the “mnlogit” R package. The MLR model fitness indices included p-value of the Wald test (corrected for false-discovery rate via Benjamini and Hochberg method), pseudo R2 (goodness of fit criteria in a logistic regression model), as well as coefficient and Standard of Error (SE). In the MLR model, class 0 served as a reference class whereas statistical comparison between two models (the two feature selectors) was performed by the Likelihood Ratio Test. Ten-fold cross-validation with bootstrapping (n=1000) was used to validate model performance. We report precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy for different class for each model. In addition, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUCs) for multi-class classification models were calculated and compared for both models using “multiROC” and “pROC” R packages, respectively.

RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the selected features and their importance value (IV) by BRF and MARS for multiclass classification. Nineteen radiomics features were selected by BRF, including 9 from first-order, 6 from GLCM, one from GLDM, one from shape, one from NGTDM, and one from GLSZM. Among these features, Mean Absolute Deviation (IV: 80%), Robust Mean Absolute Deviation (IV: 72%) and kurtosis (IV: 70%) features from first-order, and Correlation (IV: 75%), and Cluster Tendency (IV: 73%) features from GLCM were selected as the most important ones. In the MARS algorithm, 10 features were selected with high IVs, including 2 from first-order, 1 from GLDM, 2 from GLRLM, 2 from GLSZM, and 3 from GLCM. The highest IV was achieved by Gray Level Variance from GLDM (IV: 94%), Zone Entropy from GLSZM (IV: 93%), and Small Area Emphasis from GLSZM (IV: 83%). Mean Absolute Deviation and Median from first-order features, Small Area Emphasis from GLSZM, and Correlation from GLCM, were selected by both BRF and MARS algorithms. Figure 3 depicts the feature map of different radiomics features in different classes. Figure 4 represents the feature selection process for multi-class classification by BRF and MARS.

View this table:
Table 1.

Selected features by Bagging Random Forests (BRF) (“VSURF” R package) and multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) (“earth” R package) for multi-class classification

Figure 3:
Figure 3:

Example of selected features (Median feature from First Order, Contrast feature form NGDTM and GLV features from GLDM) in different class cases.

Figure 4:
Figure 4:

Feature selection process for multi-class classification by (a) Bagging Random Forests (number of selected features=19), and (b) Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (number of selected features=10).

Table 2 summarizes the adjusted p-value (by Benjamini and Hochberg method) of the Wald test and coefficient (standard of error) for selected features by BRF and MARS algorithms. Except for Inverse Variance from GLCM, all selected features yielded a significant p-value (<0.05). BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR resulted in pseudo R2 values of 0.295 and 0.256, respectively. However, there were no significant differences between both models when using a likelihood ratio test (p-value =0.319).

View this table:
Table 2.

Model fitness indices for application of multinomial logistic regression (MLR) (“mnlogit” R package) to selected features.

Table 3 summarizes classification power indices (SD), including Precision, Recall, F1-score, Accuracy, and AUC via multinomial logistic regression with 1000 bootstrapping samples for each model. In terms of F1-score, classes 2 and 3 resulted in the lowest precision (mean (sd)) in BRF+MLR (0.798 (0.106)) and MARS+MLR (0.752 (0.099)), whereas four-class mean F1-scores were 0.847 and 0.805 for BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR algorithms, respectively. The mean precision was 0.861 and 0.825, whereas the mean recall was 0.844 and 0.793 for BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR algorithms, respectively. BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR algorithms achieved an accuracy of 0.933 and 0.922, respectively, in four-class classification. AUCs (95% CI) for multi-class classification were 0.823 (0.795-0.852) and 0.816 (0.788-0.844) for BRF+MLR and MARS+MLR algorithms, respectively. Figure 5 depicts the ROC curves for our four-class classification method.

View this table:
Table 3.

Classification performance indices by multinomial logistic regression with 1000 bootstrapping samples based feature selection. SD hown in brackets.

Figure 5:
Figure 5:

(a) ROC curve for assessing power of multi-class classification of the selected features in Bagging Random Forests (AUC=0.823), and (b) Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (AUC=0.816). Statistical comparison of ROC curves by “pROC” R package indicated non-significant difference (Z=-1.164, P-value=0.244).

DISCUSSION

In the current study, we constructed a CT radiomics-based model to predict the severity of COVID-19 patients in a large cohort of patients. To this end, we extracted radiomics features from whole lung segmentations and selected high-importance features utilizing two different algorithms, namely BRF and MARS. The selected features were then fed to a multinomial logistic regression classifier for multiclass severity scoring. We achieved 0.823 (95% CI: 0.795-0.852) and 0.816 (95% CI: 0.788-0.844) for AUC, and 0.933 and 0.922 for accuracy in BRF- and MARS-selected features, respectively.

We used an automatic model 48 to segment chest CT images for two reasons. First, most CT scans performed in the COVID-19 pandemic era are low-dose. In addition, these scans are acquired with a high pitch. Hence, it is difficult for radiologists to find and follow lung fissures to manually detect or segment the anatomical lobes. As such, we used our previously constructed deep learning model to fully segment the entire lung of each patient.

Yip et al. 46 conducted a study on the same dataset utilized in this work, aiming to evaluate some radiomics features towards severity class prediction in patients. They included all 1110 patient CT scans and extracted 107 radiomics features. The maximum relevance minimum redundancy (MRMR) and recursive feature elimination (RFE) algorithms were exploited for feature selection and analysis of the selected features using univariate and multivariate approaches using a logistic regression model to classify as accurately as possible. In their study, the patients were categorized into three severity categories, namely mild, moderate, and severe, to perform two-class classification tasks (mild vs. severe and moderate vs. severe) by splitting the data into training (60%) and test (40%) sets. The authors obtained an AUC of 0.65 in differentiating between moderate and severe cases, while their model performed better (AUC = 0.85) in distinguishing mild vs. severe forms of COVID-19 disease. In this work, we reached an overall AUC of 0.823. In our study and the one by Yip et al. 46, feature extractions were performed using Pyradiomics 50 as applied to the entire lung. Interestingly, there were some commonly selected features arrived at via feature selection in both studies, including Small Area Emphasis from GLSZM, Correlation and Informational Measure of Correlation from GLCM, and Median and Mean Absolute Deviation from first-order features. These selected features in both studies could potentially be used as predictors as they provide information about the intensity and heterogeneity of the lung in COVID-19 patients.

A noticeable advantage of the study by Yip et al. 46 was the use of a second radiologist observer who classified patients’ images into mild, moderate, and severe classes without paying attention to the default classification of the dataset provider. This method helped to observe the prediction power of the models in both “provider” and “radiologist” datasets. In addition, they split the dataset into training and test sets. In contrast, we applied the bootstrapping technique to estimate and ensure the reproducibility of our results. In addition, the study by Yip et al. 46 may have reduced generalizability as it only predicts mild versus severe, and moderate versus severe disease, having reduced multiclass classification into two-class approaches. In the real clinical triage situation, the radiologist may benefit from a multiclass classification scheme for enhanced patient management, as provided by our study.

Homayounieh et al. 54 included 315 patients in their study and extracted CT-based radiomics features from the lung to show that radiomics can predict patients’ outcome (inpatient vs. outpatient management) with an AUC of 0.84 while the radiologist assessment alone achieved an AUC of 0.69. Feature extraction was performed by applying the different preprocessing algorithms on images, with classification performed using logistic regression. They reported that adding clinical variables to the radiomics model can notably improve the predictability of a model for patient outcome prediction (AUC improved from 0.75 to 0.84). Another study conducted by Wei et al. 55 evaluated the predictive ability of two models (one CT texture-based and one clinical) for determining the severity of each of the 81 COVID-19 patients. They showed that CT texture features could modestly predict whether the patient has common COVID-19 pneumonia or a severe one with an AUC of 0.93, which is comparable to that of the clinical-only model (AUC = 0.95). They also observed that several texture features had a moderate correlation with the clinical variables of patients.

Chaganti et al. 56 studied Ground Glass Opacity (GGO) and consolidations that appear on a CT image of COVID-19 patients in an attempt to propose an automated method for segmenting and quantifying COVID-19 lesions. Their proposed method calculated the percentage of opacity and lung severity score using deep learning algorithms and was able to predict the severity with a decent performance. However, Chaganti et al. 56 proposed a method trained only on the mentioned abnormalities and had a limited performance in other abnormalities quantification. Even with improving segmentation algorithms, this method would be limited because of the highly heterogeneous nature of COVID-19 pneumonia in addition to ignoring the shape and texture of segmented lesions. Moreover, providing accurate lobe segmentation of COVID-19 patients would be challenging from typical low-dose and high pitch chest CT scans. In the current and previous studies 44,46,55, radiomics features, as extracted from the entire lung (less challenging segmentation task for deep learning algorithms), were evaluated to provide fast and robust severity scoring in COVID-19 patients.

In this work, chest CT was used for assessment. At the same time, there are few studies on other modalities such as chest X-ray radiography in prognostication and outcome prediction evaluation of COVID-19 patients. For example, Bae and colleagues 57 utilized radiomics features and modeled them on chest X-rays of 514 patients and found out that their radiomics- and deep learning-based model can accurately predict mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in patients (AUCs = 0.93 and 0.90, respectively). Providing a severity score using chest X-rays is a valuable venue to explore. Yet, such work requires extensive comparisons with CT-based frameworks to assess the relative value of each modality for different tasks.

This study suffered from a few limitations, including the fact that our model was trained on single-center data. At the same time, we evaluated our models using a 10-fold cross-validation and bootstrapping technique to evaluate the repeatability and robustness of our results. In any case, further research should be conducted on multicentric data and patient images with multiple observers for improved training of the models and enhanced generalizability.

Conclusion

We evaluated high-dimensional multinomial multiclass severity scoring of pneumonia using CT radiomics features and machine learning algorithms. We applied two feature selectors (BRF and MARS) coupled to one classifier (multiclass logistic regression model) on a large cohort of COVID-19 patients. Our radiomics model was validated to depict accurate classification of patients according to multi-class pneumonia severity assessment criteria, highlighting the potential of this emerging paradigm in the assessment and management of COVID-19 patients.

Data Availability

All data produced are available online at

https://mosmed.ai/datasets/covid19_1110

Conflict of Interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant SNRF 320030_176052.

Abbreviations

CT
Computed Tomography
COVID-19
Coronavirus disease 2019
AUC
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve
BRF
Bagging Random Forest
FS
Feature Selection
GGO
Ground Glass Opacity
IBSI
The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative
MARS
Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines
MLR
Multinomial Logistic Regression
RT-PCR
Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction
GLCM
Gray-Level Co-Occurrence Matrix
GLSZM
Gray-Level Size-Zone Matrix
NGTDM
Neighbouring Gray Tone Difference Matrix
GLRLM
Gray-Level Run-Length Matrix
GLDM
Gray-Level Dependence Matrix

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Meyerowitz-Katz, G. & Merone, L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates. Int J Infect Dis 101, 138–148 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Cascella, M., Rajnik, M., Cuomo, A., Dulebohn, S.C. & Di Napoli, R. Features, Evaluation, and Treatment of Coronavirus. in StatPearls (StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2020, StatPearls Publishing LLC., Treasure Island (FL), 2020).
  3. 3.↵
    Corman, V.M., et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 25(2020).
  4. 4.↵
    La Marca, A., et al. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): a systematic review and clinical guide to molecular and serological in-vitro diagnostic assays. Reprod Biomed Online 41, 483–499 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Schmidt, C.W. CT scans: balancing health risks and medical benefits. Environ Health Perspect 120, A118–A121 (2012).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Shiri, I., et al. COVID-19 prognostic modeling using CT radiomic features and machine learning algorithms: Analysis of a multi-institutional dataset of 14,339 patients. Comput Biol Med 145, 105467 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    Shiri, I., et al. Diagnosis of COVID-19 Using CT image Radiomics Features: A Comprehensive Machine Learning Study Involving 26,307 Patients. medRxiv (2021).
  8. 8.↵
    Li, Y. & Xia, L. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Role of Chest CT in Diagnosis and Management. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 214, 1280–1286 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Long, C., et al. Diagnosis of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): rRT-PCR or CT? European journal of radiology 126, 108961 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gellman, M.D. &
    2. Turner, J.R.
    Gambert, S. Disease Severity. in Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine (eds. Gellman, M.D. & Turner, J.R.) 606–606 (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2013).
  11. 11.↵
    Tai, S.Y., et al. Symptom severity of patients with advanced cancer in palliative care unit: longitudinal assessments of symptoms improvement. BMC palliative care 15, 32 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    Fjerstad, M., Trussell, J., Lichtenberg, E.S., Sivin, I. & Cullins, V. Severity of infection following the introduction of new infection control measures for medical abortion. Contraception 83, 330–335 (2011).
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    Bouch, D.C. & Thompson, J.P. Severity scoring systems in the critically ill. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain 8, 181–185 (2008).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    Robilotti, E.V., et al. Determinants of COVID-19 disease severity in patients with cancer. Nature Medicine 26, 1218–1223 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Li, X., et al. Risk factors for severity and mortality in adult COVID-19 inpatients in Wuhan. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 146, 110–118 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Sanders, D.B., Li, Z., Brody, A.S. & Farrell, P.M. Chest computed tomography scores of severity are associated with future lung disease progression in children with cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 184, 816–821 (2011).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    Sahu, B., et al. Severity assessment of acute pancreatitis using CT severity index and modified CT severity index: Correlation with clinical outcomes and severity grading as per the Revised Atlanta Classification. Indian J Radiol Imaging 27, 152–160 (2017).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.
    Raghuwanshi, S., Gupta, R., Vyas, M.M. & Sharma, R. CT Evaluation of Acute Pancreatitis and its Prognostic Correlation with CT Severity Index. J Clin Diagn Res 10, TC06–TC11 (2016).
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    Alhajeri, A. & Erwin, S. Acute pancreatitis: value and impact of CT severity index. Abdominal imaging 33, 18–20 (2008).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    Prokop, M., et al. CO-RADS: A Categorical CT Assessment Scheme for Patients Suspected of Having COVID-19-Definition and Evaluation. Radiology 296, E97–e104 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    Neri, E., et al. Structured reporting of chest CT in COVID-19 pneumonia: a consensus proposal. Insights into Imaging 11, 92 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    Francone, M., et al. Chest CT score in COVID-19 patients: correlation with disease severity and short-term prognosis. Eur Radiol 30, 6808–6817 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Zhao, W., Zhong, Z., Xie, X., Yu, Q. & Liu, J. Relation Between Chest CT Findings and Clinical Conditions of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pneumonia: A Multicenter Study. AJR. American journal of roentgenology 214, 1072–1077 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    Li, K., et al. The Clinical and Chest CT Features Associated With Severe and Critical COVID-19 Pneumonia. Investigative radiology 55, 327–331 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    Yip, S.S.F. & Aerts, H.J.W.L. Applications and limitations of radiomics. Physics in medicine and biology 61, R150–R166 (2016).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    Cunliffe, A., et al. Lung texture in serial thoracic computed tomography scans: correlation of radiomics-based features with radiation therapy dose and radiation pneumonitis development. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 91, 1048–1056 (2015).
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.
    Nazari, M., Shiri, I. & Zaidi, H. Radiomics-based machine learning model to predict risk of death within 5-years in clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients. Comput Biol Med 129, 104135 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.
    Mostafaei, S., et al. CT imaging markers to improve radiation toxicity prediction in prostate cancer radiotherapy by stacking regression algorithm. La radiologia medica 125, 87–97 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Shiri, I., et al. Machine learning-based prognostic modeling using clinical data and quantitative radiomic features from chest CT images in COVID-19 patients. Comput Biol Med 132, 104304 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.
    Shayesteh, S., et al. Treatment response prediction using MRI-based pre-, post-, and delta-radiomic features and machine learning algorithms in colorectal cancer. Med Phys 48, 3691–3701 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.
    Amini, M., et al. Multi-level multi-modality (PET and CT) fusion radiomics: prognostic modeling for non-small cell lung carcinoma. Phys Med Biol 66(2021).
  32. 32.
    Khodabakhshi, Z., et al. Overall Survival Prediction in Renal Cell Carcinoma Patients Using Computed Tomography Radiomic and Clinical Information. J Digit Imaging 34, 1086–1098 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.
    Khodabakhshi, Z., et al. Non-small cell lung carcinoma histopathological subtype phenotyping using high-dimensional multinomial multiclass CT radiomics signature. Comput Biol Med 136, 104752 (2021).
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.
    Shiri, I., et al. Impact of feature harmonization on radiogenomics analysis: Prediction of EGFR and KRAS mutations from non-small cell lung cancer PET/CT images. Comput Biol Med 142, 105230 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    Rahmim, A., et al. Tensor Radiomics: Paradigm for Systematic Incorporation of Multi-Flavoured Radiomics Features. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.06314 (2022).
  36. 36.↵
    Liu, Z., et al. The Applications of Radiomics in Precision Diagnosis and Treatment of Oncology: Opportunities and Challenges. Theranostics 9, 1303–1322 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.
    Edalat-Javid, M., et al. Cardiac SPECT radiomic features repeatability and reproducibility: A multi-scanner phantom study. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology (2020).
  38. 38.
    Abdollahi, H., Shiri, I. & Heydari, M. Medical Imaging Technologists in Radiomics Era: An Alice in Wonderland Problem. Iran J Public Health 48, 184–186 (2019).
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.
    Amini, M., et al. Overall Survival Prognostic Modelling of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Using Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Harmonised Radiomics Features: The Quest for the Optimal Machine Learning Algorithm. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 34, 114–127 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Avard, E., et al. Non-contrast Cine Cardiac Magnetic Resonance image radiomics features and machine learning algorithms for myocardial infarction detection. Comput Biol Med 141, 105145 (2022).
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    Xie, C., et al. Discrimination of pulmonary ground-glass opacity changes in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients using CT radiomics analysis. European journal of radiology open 7, 100271 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Di, D., et al. Hypergraph learning for identification of COVID-19 with CT imaging. Medical image analysis 68, 101910 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    Bouchareb, Y., et al. Artificial intelligence-driven assessment of radiological images for COVID-19. Computers in biology and medicine, 104665 (2021).
  44. 44.↵
    Homayounieh, F., et al. Computed Tomography Radiomics Can Predict Disease Severity and Outcome in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia. J Comput Assist Tomogr 44, 640–646 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    Wang, Y., et al. Temporal Changes of CT Findings in 90 Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Longitudinal Study. Radiology 296, E55–e64 (2020).
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    Yip, S.S.F., et al. Performance and Robustness of Machine Learning-based Radiomic COVID-19 Severity Prediction. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2020.2009.2007.20189977 (2020).
  47. 47.↵
    Jin, C., et al. Development and evaluation of an artificial intelligence system for COVID-19 diagnosis. Nature communications 11, 5088 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Shiri, I., et al. COLI-NET: Fully Automated COVID-19 Lung and Infection Pneumonia Lesion Detection and Segmentation from Chest CT Images. medRxiv, 2021.2004.2008.21255163 (2021).
  49. 49.↵
    Shiri, I., et al. COLI-Net: Deep learning-assisted fully automated COVID-19 lung and infection pneumonia lesion detection and segmentation from chest computed tomography images. Int J Imaging Syst Technol (2021).
  50. 50.↵
    van Griethuysen, J.J.M., et al. Computational Radiomics System to Decode the Radiographic Phenotype. Cancer Res 77, e104–e107 (2017).
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    Zwanenburg, A., et al. The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput image-based phenotyping. Radiology 295, 328–338 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M. & Tuleau-Malot, C. VSURF: an R package for variable selection using random forests. (2015).
  53. 53.↵
    Zhang, W., Wu, C., Li, Y., Wang, L. & Samui, P. Assessment of pile drivability using random forest regression and multivariate adaptive regression splines. Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards, 1–14 (2019).
  54. 54.↵
    Homayounieh, F., et al. CT Radiomics, Radiologists, and Clinical Information in Predicting Outcome of Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia. Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging 2, e200322 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  55. 55.↵
    Wei, W., Hu, X.W., Cheng, Q., Zhao, Y.M. & Ge, Y.Q. Identification of common and severe COVID-19: the value of CT texture analysis and correlation with clinical characteristics. Eur Radiol 30, 6788–6796 (2020).
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  56. 56.↵
    Chaganti, S., et al. Automated Quantification of CT Patterns Associated with COVID-19 from Chest CT. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence 2, e200048 (2020).
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    Bae, J., et al. Predicting Mechanical Ventilation Requirement and Mortality in COVID-19 using Radiomics and Deep Learning on Chest Radiographs: A Multi-Institutional Study. ArXiv (2020).
Back to top
Posted April 28, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
High-Dimensional Multinomial Multiclass Severity Scoring of COVID-19 Pneumonia Using CT Radiomics Features and Machine Learning Algorithms
Isaac Shiri, Shayan Mostafaei, Atlas Haddadi Avval, Yazdan Salimi, Amirhossein Sanaat, Azadeh Akhavanallaf, Hossein Arabi, Arman Rahmim, Habib Zaidi
medRxiv 2022.04.27.22274369; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.27.22274369
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area