MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416930931 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1812922

Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET/CT volumetric parameters in childhood, adolescent, and young adult Hodgkin lymphoma (CAYAHL): a systematic review from the international SEARCH group (Staging, Evaluation and Response Criteria Harmonization)

2025· article· W4416930931 on OpenAlexaff
Claire Gowdy, Jamie E. Flerlage, Jennifer Seelisch, Michael Palese, Tyler Bradshaw, S Castellino, Steve K. Cho, Karin Dieckmann, Bradford S. Hoppe, Scott C. Howard, Kara M. Kelly, Lars Kurch, Hollie Lai, Egesta Lopci, John T. Lucas, Christine Mauz-Koerholz, Kathleen M. McCarten, Neeta Pandit‐Taskar, Heiko Schöder, J. Steglich, Dietrich Stoevesandt, Stephan D. Voss, Sarah A. Milgrom

Bibliographic record

VenueKlinische Pädiatrie · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHodgkin lymphomaYoung adultValue (mathematics)Lymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In adults with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), PET volumetric parameters are valuable for risk stratification. This study was undertaken to explore the role of metabolic parameters in children, adolescents, and young adults with cHL. Methods This systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA method. Five databases were searched on 16 th October 2024: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EBM Reviews (OVID) and the Web of Science Core Collection. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed manuscripts, written in English, published from database inception to the search date that included patients up to 21 years of age with a diagnosis of cHL and a 18 F-FDG PET/CT scan with calculation of MTV. Results The search strategy detected 3669 studies from which 1085 duplicates and 2584 studies were excluded following 2-person review of titles and abstracts. Full-text review of 81 papers identified 35 as eligible for inclusion. Fifteen of the papers (43%) evaluated a cohort exclusively<21 years of age and 20 papers (57%) considered children and adults, with a median of 69 (21-297) participants. All 8 studies that explored the association of baseline MTV and/or TLG (total lesion glycolysis) with known risk factors (ex. bulk, stage, clinical parameters used to define treatment group/level) identified a significant correlation. Twelve papers explored the association of baseline MTV and/or TLG with disease response on PET/CT according to Lugano criteria, of which 9 (75%) demonstrated a statistically significant correlation. Twenty papers explored the association of baseline PET parameters with clinical outcome (ex. overall survival, progression-free survival) and 15 (75%) demonstrated an independent statistically significant correlation. Of 6 studies that explored higher-order radiomic features, 4 (67%) found that they out-performed MTV and/or TLG. Thirty-three of 35 studies detailed the segmentation approach that was used to delineate disease, of which 11 used or recommended an absolute fixed threshold method. Conclusion Metabolic PET parameters are valuable for risk stratification; heterogeneity in results is related to differences in patient cohorts, treatment strategies, methods for disease segmentation, and parameter calculation. Recommendations regarding the necessary next steps to harmonize the approach and incorporate PET volumetric parameters into clinical practice for children, adolescents and young adults with cHL are discussed [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ]. Publication History Article published online: 02 December 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueKlinische PädiatrieSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207