Back

Information-Guided Parameter Optimisation for MR Elastography Radiomics

Djebbara, I.; Yin, Z.; Friismose, A. I.; Poulsen, F. R.; Hojo, E.; Aunan-Diop, J. S.

2026-03-20 radiology and imaging
10.64898/2026.03.17.26348578 medRxiv
Show abstract

Mechanical properties of biological tissues vary across spatial scales, yet radiomics typically relies on fixed, heuristic choices for neighbourhood size, kernel geometry, and spectral content - choices that can silently reshape the feature space before any modelling begins. We introduce a label-free, information-theoretic framework for selecting extraction parameters in multi-frequency MRE radiomics. For each configuration {theta} - neighbourhood radius r, kernel geometry k (sphere or shell), and frequency subset f - we extract a radiomics feature matrix and score it using an objective J({theta}) that integrates distributional richness (Shannon entropy), cross-frequency coherence (canonical correlation), inter-feature redundancy (Spearman correlation), and bootstrap stability. We evaluate 121 configurations per tissue in multi-frequency MRE (30-60 Hz) of human brain, liver, and a calibrated phantom, and test robustness using 10,000 Dirichlet-sampled objective weightings. Across tissues, neighbourhood aggregation is consistently preferred over voxel-wise extraction, outperforming the no-neighbourhood baseline in 98.4-100% of weightings. External validation in 100 independent brain scans acquired with a different protocol and wider frequency range (20-90 Hz) confirms a reproducible mesoscopic plateau at r = 3-5 (9-15 mm), with a modal optimum at r = 4; omitting neighbourhood analysis reduces J({theta}) by 38% relative to each subject's optimum. Frequency-subset preferences replicate across datasets, with lower frequencies most frequently selected for brain. By turning ad hoc extraction choices into an outcome-free optimisation step, this framework improves reproducibility, reduces sensitivity to heuristic parameter choices, and generalises across acquisition protocols and imaging sites.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.