ArticleSkeletal radiology2022
Your mileage may vary: impact of data input method for a deep learning bone age app's predictions.
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smartphone Imaging and AI: A Commentary on Cardiac Device Classification.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Robustness of a Deep Learning Bone Age Algorithm to Clinical Image Variation Using Computational Stress Testing.Radiology. Artificial intelligence · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement in predictions made by a bone age prediction application ("app") among three data input methods.
methodsThe 16Bit Bone Age app is a browser-based deep learning application for predicting bone age on pediatric hand radiographs; recommended data input methods are direct image file upload or smartphone-capture of image. We collected 50 hand radiographs, split equally among 5 bone age groups. Three observers used the 16Bit Bone Age app to assess these images using 3 different data input methods: (1) direct image upload, (2) smartphone photo of image in radiology reading room, and (3) smartphone photo of image in a clinic.
resultsInterobserver agreement was excellent for direct upload (ICC = 1.00) and for photos in reading room (ICC = 0.96) and good for photos in clinic (ICC = 0.82), respectively. Intraobserver agreement for the entire test set across the 3 data input methods was variable with ICCs of 0.95, 0.96, and 0.57 for the 3 observers, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our findings indicate that different data input methods can result in discordant bone age predictions from the 16Bit Bone Age app. Further study is needed to determine the impact of data input methods, such as smartphone image capture, on deep learning app performance and accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34476558What 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.