Whole-body MRI versus an [18F]FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard for early response assessment and restaging of paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a prospective multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To compare WB-MRI with an [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT-based reference for early response assessment and restaging in children with Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL). Methods Fifty-one children (ages 10–17) with HL were included in this prospective, multicentre study. All participants underwent WB-MRI and [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT at early response assessment. Thirteen of the 51 patients also underwent both WB-MRI and [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT at restaging. Two radiologists independently evaluated all WB-MR images in two separate readings: without and with DWI. The [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT examinations were evaluated by a nuclear medicine physician. An expert panel assessed all discrepancies between WB-MRI and [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT to derive the [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. Inter-observer agreement for WB-MRI was calculated using kappa statistics. Concordance, PPV, NPV, sensitivity and specificity for a correct assessment of the response between WB-MRI and the reference standard were calculated for both nodal and extra-nodal disease presence and total response evaluation. Results Inter-observer agreement of WB-MRI including DWI between both readers was moderate ( κ 0.46–0.60). For early response assessment, WB-MRI DWI agreed with the reference standard in 33/51 patients (65%, 95% CI 51–77%) versus 15/51 (29%, 95% CI 19–43%) for WB-MRI without DWI. For restaging, WB-MRI including DWI agreed with the reference standard in 9/13 patients (69%, 95% CI 42–87%) versus 5/13 patients (38%, 95% CI 18–64%) for WB-MRI without DWI. Conclusions The addition of DWI to the WB-MRI protocol in early response assessment and restaging of paediatric HL improved agreement with the [ 18 F]FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. However, WB-MRI remained discordant in 30% of the patients compared to standard imaging for assessing residual disease presence. Key Points • Inter-observer agreement of WB-MRI including DWI between both readers was moderate for (early) response assessment of paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma. • The addition of DWI to the WB-MRI protocol in early response assessment and restaging of paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma improved agreement with the [18F]FDG-PET/CT-based reference standard. • WB-MRI including DWI agreed with the reference standard in respectively 65% and 69% of the patients for early response assessment and restaging.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".