SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline on Pediatric<sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT for Oncology 1.0
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>PREAMBLE</h3> The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) is an international scientific and professional organization founded in 1954 to promote the science, technology, and practical application of nuclear medicine. The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional nonprofit medical association founded in 1985 to facilitate communication worldwide among individuals pursuing clinical and academic excellence in nuclear medicine. SNMMI and EANM members are physicians, technologists, and scientists specializing in the research and practice of nuclear medicine. The SNMMI and EANM will periodically put forth new standards/guidelines for nuclear medicine practice to help advance the science of nuclear medicine and improve service to patients. Existing standards/guidelines will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated. Each standard/guideline, representing a policy statement by the SNMMI/EANM, has undergone a thorough consensus process, entailing extensive review. The SNMMI and EANM recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging requires particular training and skills, as described in each document. These standards/guidelines are educational tools designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate and effective nuclear medicine care for patients. These guidelines are consensus documents, and are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice. They are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care. For these reasons and those set forth below, the SNMMI and the EANM cautions against the use of these standards/guidelines in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by medical professionals taking into account the unique circumstances of each case. Thus, there is no implication that action differing from what is laid out in the standards/guidelines, standing alone, is below standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in the standards/guidelines when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of the standards/guidelines. The practice of medicine involves not only the science, but also the art of dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation, and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible for general guidelines to consistently allow for an accurate diagnosis to be reached or a particular treatment response to be predicted. Therefore, it should be recognized that adherence to these standards/guidelines will not ensure a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that the practitioner follows a reasonable course of action, based on their level of training, the current knowledge, the available resources, and the needs/context of the particular patient being treated. PET and computerized tomography (CT) have been widely used in oncology. <sup>18</sup>F-FDG is the most common radiotracer used for PET imaging. The purpose of this document is to provide imaging specialists and clinicians guidelines for recommending, performing, and interpreting <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT in pediatric patients in oncology. There is not a high level of evidence for all recommendations suggested in this paper. These recommendations represent the expert opinions of experienced leaders in this field. Further studies are needed to have evidence-based recommendations for the application of <sup>18</sup>F-FDG PET/CT in pediatric oncology. These recommendations should be viewed in the context of good practice of nuclear medicine and are not intended to be a substitute for national and international legal or regulatory provisions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.040 |
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".