Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35463905›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022

A Study to Evaluate Accuracy and Validity of the EFAI Computer-Aided Bone Age Diagnosis System Compared With Qualified Physicians.

Chi-Fung Cheng, Ken Ying-Kai Liao, Kuan-Jung Lee, Fuu-Jen Tsai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Chi-Fung ChengBig Data Center, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung City, Taiwan.
Ken Ying-Kai LiaoEver Fortune.AI Co., Ltd., Taichung City, Taiwan.
Kuan-Jung LeeEver Fortune.AI Co., Ltd., Taichung City, Taiwan.
Fuu-Jen TsaiDepartment of Medical Genetics, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung City, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study Objectives: In previous research, we built a deep neural network model based on Inception-Resnet-v2 to predict bone age (EFAI-BAA). The primary objective of the study was to determine if the EFAI-BAA was substantially concordant with the qualified physicians in assessing bone ages. The secondary objective of the study was to determine if the EFAI-BAA was no different in the clinical rating (advanced, normal, or delayed) with the qualified physicians. Method: This was a retrospective study. The left-hand X-ray images of male subjects aged 3-16 years old and female subjects aged 2-15 years old were collected from China Medical University Hospital (CMUH) and Asia University Hospital (AUH) retrospectively since the trial began until the included image amount reached 368. This was a blinded study. The qualified physicians who ran, read, and interpreted the tests were blinded to the values assessed by the other qualified physicians and the EFAI-BAA. Results: The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) between the EFAI-BAA (EFAI-BAA), the evaluation of bone age by physician in Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital (KVGH), Taichung Veterans General Hospital (TVGH2), and in Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital (TZUCHI-TP) was 0.9828 (95% CI: 0.9790-0.9859, Conclusion: There was a consistency of bone age assessment between the EFAI-BAA and each one of the three qualified physicians (CCC = 0.9). As the significant difference in the clinical rating was only found between the EFAI-BAA and the qualified physician in TVGH2, the performance of the EFAI-BAA was considered similar to the qualified physicians.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebone age assessmentclinical practiceconcordance correlation coefficient (CCC)deep learning

Identifiers

PMID35463905
PMCPMC9024098

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.