MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913639553 · doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.222299

Is True Whole-Body<sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT Required in Pediatric Lymphoma? An IAEA Multicenter Prospective Study

2019· article· en· W2913639553 on OpenAlexaff
Juliano J. Cerci, Elba Etchebehere, Helen Nadel, Anita Brink, Chandrasekhar Bal, Venkatesh Rangarajan, Thomas Pfluger, Olga Kagna, Ómar Alonso, Fatima Begum, Kahkashan Bashir Mir, Vincent Peter C. Magboo, Leon Menezes, Diana Páez, Thomas N.B. Pascual

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nuclear Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNuclear medicineLymphomaPositron emission tomographyRadiologyLesionProspective cohort studyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Guidelines recommend true whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT scans from vertex to toes in pediatric lymphoma patients, although this suggestion has not been validated in large clinical trials. The objective of the study was to evaluate the incidence and clinical impact of lesions outside the “eyes to thighs” regular field of view (R-FOV) in 18F-FDG PET/CT staging (sPET) and interim (iPET) scans in pediatric lymphoma patients. Methods: True whole-body sPET and iPET scans were prospectively obtained in pediatric lymphoma patients (11 worldwide centers). Expert panel central review of sPET and iPET scans were evaluated for lymphoma lesions outside the R-FOV and clinical relevance of these findings. Results: A total of 610 scans were obtained in 305 patients. The sPET scans did not show lesions outside the R-FOV in 91.8% of the patients, whereas in 8.2% patients the sPET scans demonstrated lesions also outside the R-FOV (soft tissue, bone, bone marrow, and skin); however, the presence of these lesions did not change the clinical stage of any patient and did not affect treatment decision. Among the 305 iPET scans, there were no new positive 18F-FDG–avid lesions outside the R-FOV, when compared with their paired sPET scans. A single lesion outside the R-FOV on iPET occurred in 1 patient (0.3%), with the primary lesion diagnosed in the femur on sPET that persisted on iPET. Conclusion: The identification of additional lesions outside the R-FOV (eyes to thighs) using 18F-FDG PET/CT has no impact in the definition of the clinical stage of disease and minimal impact in the treatment definition of patients with pediatric lymphoma. As so, R-FOV for both sPET and iPET scans could be performed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nuclear MedicineSame topicMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207