Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29384743›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology2017

Forensic age estimation based on development of third molars: a staging technique for magnetic resonance imaging.

J De Tobel, I Phlypo, S Fieuws, C Politis, K L Verstraete, P W Thevissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. CT and MR imaging used in age estimation: a systematic review.The Journal of forensic odonto-stomatology · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

J De TobelDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University, Belgium.
I PhlypoDepartment of Dentistry - Special Care in Dentistry, PaeCoMeDiS, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
S FieuwsLeuven Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics Centre (L-BioStat), Leuven, Belgium.
C PolitisDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Leuven University Hospital, Belgium.
K L VerstraeteDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University, Belgium.
P W ThevissenDepartment of Oral Health Sciences - Forensic Dentistry, KU Leuven and Department of Dentistry - University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of third molars can be evaluated with medical imaging to estimate age in subadults. The appearance of third molars on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) differs greatly from that on radiographs. Therefore a specific staging technique is necessary to classify third molar development on MRI and to apply it for age estimation.

aimTo develop a specific staging technique to register third molar development on MRI and to evaluate its performance for age estimation in subadults. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing 3T MRI in three planes, all third molars were evaluated in 309 healthy Caucasian participants from 14 to 26 years old. According to the appearance of the developing third molars on MRI, descriptive criteria and schematic representations were established to define a specific staging technique. Two observers, with different levels of experience, staged all third molars independently with the developed technique. Intra- and inter-observer agreement were calculated. The data were imported in a Bayesian model for age estimation as described by Fieuws et al. (2016). This approach adequately handles correlation between age indicators and missing age indicators. It was used to calculate a point estimate and a prediction interval of the estimated age. Observed age minus predicted age was calculated, reflecting the error of the estimate.

resultsOne-hundred and sixty-six third molars were agenetic. Five percent (51/1096) of upper third molars and 7% (70/1044) of lower third molars were not assessable. Kappa for inter-observer agreement ranged from 0.76 to 0.80. For intra-observer agreement kappa ranged from 0.80 to 0.89. However, two stage differences between observers or between staging sessions occurred in up to 2.2% (20/899) of assessments, probably due to a learning effect. Using the Bayesian model for age estimation, a mean absolute error of 2.0 years in females and 1.7 years in males was obtained. Root mean squared error equalled 2.38 years and 2.06 years respectively. The performance to discern minors from adults was better for males than for females, with specificities of 96% and 73% respectively.

conclusionAge estimations based on the proposed staging method for third molars on MRI showed comparable reproducibility and performance as the established methods based on radiographs.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdolescentAdultAge Determination by TeethHumansLikelihood FunctionsMolar, ThirdReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29384743
PMCPMC6100221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.