Whole-Body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI for Oncology: A Consensus Recommendation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combined PET/MR imaging (PET/MRI) was proposed for patient management in 2006 with first commercial versions of integrated whole-body systems becoming available as of 2010. PET/MRI followed the prior evolution of hybrid imaging as attested by the successful adoption of combined PET/CT and SPECT/CT since the early 2000 s. Today, around 150 whole-body PET/MRI systems have become operational worldwide. One of the main application fields of PET/MRI is oncologic imaging. Despite the increasing use of PET/MRI, little governance regarding standardized PET/MRI protocols has been provided to date. Standardization and harmonization of imaging protocols is, however, mandatory for efficient on-site patient management and multi-center studies. This document summarizes consensus recommendations on key aspects of patient referral and preparation, PET/MRI workflow and imaging protocols, as well as reporting strategies for whole-body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI. These recommendations were created by early adopters and key experts in the field of PET, MRI and PET/MRI. This document is intended to provide guidance for the harmonization and standardization of PET/ MRI today and to support wider clinical adoption of this imaging modality for the benefit of patients. CITATION FORMAT:: Umutlu L, Beyer T, Grueneisen JS et al. Whole-Body [18F]-FDG-PET/MRI for Oncology: A Consensus Recommendation. Nuklearmedizin 2019, 58: 1-9.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".