Case: Incidental 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography prostate uptake: How should these patients be managed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/ computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) is a widely used diagnostic tool for whole-body imaging, and incidental prostatic uptake occurs in approximately 1% of patients undergoing the exam. Is 18F-FDG PET/CT a reliable screening tool for prostate cancer? Should these patients undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies? Studies have indicated that 18F-FDG PET/CT has a low positive predictive value for prostate cancer and is not recommended for screening;1 however, other studies suggest that when a discrete focal 18F-FDG uptake is discovered without coincidental calcification, particularly in the peripheral zone of the prostate, further clinical evaluation is recommended. We present two patients with incidental 18F-FDG PET/CT prostatic uptake who were found to have high-grade prostate cancer. Although 18F-FDG PET/CT has not been determined to be a reliable screening tool for prostate cancer, patients with incidental 18F-FDG uptake in the prostate should be referred for urological evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".