ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2026
PET scout: A valuable technology in pediatric
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo explore the potential value of PET Scout technology for optimizing the examination workflow of pediatric ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT.
methodsA total of 527 children who underwent PET/CT imaging were prospectively divided into a standard-dose group (3.7 MBq/kg, n = 391) and a low-dose group (2.5 MBq/kg, n = 136). A body PET Scout scan (10 s/bed) was performed before PET/CT scan. Visual analysis of Scout MIP images identified improper positioning, radioactive contamination, and lesions outside the normal range (skull base to mid-thigh) as abnormal findings. Abnormal detection rates and lesion detection performance were compared between the two groups.
resultsPET Scout identified abnormal detections in 9.7% (51/527) of patients, including out-of-range lesions (27 cases), contamination (19 cases), and postural abnormalities (5 cases). There was no significant difference in the abnormal detection rate (9.2% vs. 11.0%, χ² = 0.383, P = 0.536) and in the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of lesion detection performance (0.9086 vs. 0.9104; Z = -0.0953, P = 0.924) between the standard-dose group and the low-dose group. Optimal SUVmax cut-offs were 3.05 (sensitivity 82.9%; specificity 85.4%) and 3.25 (sensitivity 81.6%; specificity 87.0%) for the standard and low-dose groups, respectively.
conclusionPET Scout enables early detection of abnormalities and real-time workflow optimization. The technology is comparable in lesion detectability at low-dose and standard-dose imaging, and supports flexible application under different dose strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41099836What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.