Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31344143›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Bone age assessment with various machine learning techniques: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Ana Luiza Dallora, Peter Anderberg, Ola Kvist, Emilia Mendes, Sandra Diaz Ruiz, Johan Sanmartin Berglund

Abstract readHistorical ArticleMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
–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

64 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Bone Health, Fragility Fractures, and the Hand Surgeon.Journal of hand surgery global online · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ana Luiza DalloraDepartment of Health, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6752-017X
Peter AnderbergDepartment of Health, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9870-8477
Ola KvistDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8730-5901
Emilia MendesDepartment of Computer Science, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
Sandra Diaz RuizDepartment of Pediatric Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johan Sanmartin BerglundDepartment of Health, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe assessment of bone age and skeletal maturity and its comparison to chronological age is an important task in the medical environment for the diagnosis of pediatric endocrinology, orthodontics and orthopedic disorders, and legal environment in what concerns if an individual is a minor or not when there is a lack of documents. Being a time-consuming activity that can be prone to inter- and intra-rater variability, the use of methods which can automate it, like Machine Learning techniques, is of value.

objectiveThe goal of this paper is to present the state of the art evidence, trends and gaps in the research related to bone age assessment studies that make use of Machine Learning techniques.

methodA systematic literature review was carried out, starting with the writing of the protocol, followed by searches on three databases: Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify the relevant evidence related to bone age assessment using Machine Learning techniques. One round of backward snowballing was performed to find additional studies. A quality assessment was performed on the selected studies to check for bias and low quality studies, which were removed. Data was extracted from the included studies to build summary tables. Lastly, a meta-analysis was performed on the performances of the selected studies.

results26 studies constituted the final set of included studies. Most of them proposed automatic systems for bone age assessment and investigated methods for bone age assessment based on hand and wrist radiographs. The samples used in the studies were mostly comprehensive or bordered the age of 18, and the data origin was in most of cases from United States and West Europe. Few studies explored ethnic differences.

conclusionsThere is a clear focus of the research on bone age assessment methods based on radiographs whilst other types of medical imaging without radiation exposure (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging) are not much explored in the literature. Also, socioeconomic and other aspects that could influence in bone age were not addressed in the literature. Finally, studies that make use of more than one region of interest for bone age assessment are scarce.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAge Determination by SkeletonAge FactorsBone DevelopmentChildChild DevelopmentHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansPhysical Examination

Identifiers

PMID31344143
PMCPMC6657881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.