Whole-Body MRI in Children: Concepts and Controversies—<i>AJR</i> Expert Panel Narrative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of whole-body MRI (WBMRI) in children, from infancy to adolescence, has expanded rapidly over the past decade, with increasing uptake and a broadening range of clinical indications. Current indications include screening for presymptomatic lesions in cancer predisposition syndromes; tumor staging in known malignancies; investigating fevers of unknown origin; as well as diagnosing and monitoring rheumatologic diseases, vascular anomalies, and neuromuscular disorders. This AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review aims to offer a comprehensive discussion of WBMRI in pediatric patients, exploring protocols and other technical considerations, clinical indications, implementation challenges and troubleshooting, as well as controversies in widespread adoption, while considering emerging trends and directions. Commonalities and variations in WBMRI protocols across indications and institutions are presented, highlighting the need for greater standardization. Barriers to WBMRI access, particularly in resource-limited settings, are considered, along with potential solutions. The available evidence regarding potential patient benefit from WBMRI across various applications is summarized.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it