Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37033216›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023

A comprehensive validation study of the latest version of BoneXpert on a large cohort of Caucasian children and adolescents.

Klara Maratova, Dana Zemkova, Petr Sedlak, Marketa Pavlikova, Shenali Anne Amaratunga, Hana Krasnicanova, Ondrej Soucek, Zdenek Sumnik

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Klara MaratovaDepartment of Pediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Dana ZemkovaDepartment of Pediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Petr SedlakDepartment of Anthropology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Marketa PavlikovaDepartment of Probability and Mathematical Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physic, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Shenali Anne AmaratungaDepartment of Pediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Hana KrasnicanovaDepartment of Pediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Ondrej SoucekDepartment of Pediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Zdenek SumnikDepartment of Pediatrics, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czechia.
Charles University · CZUniversity Hospital in Motol · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Automated bone age assessment has recently become increasingly popular. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between automated and manual evaluation of bone age using the method according to Tanner-Whitehouse (TW3) and Greulich-Pyle (GP). Methods: We evaluated 1285 bone age scans from 1202 children (657 scans from 612 boys) by using both manual and automated (TW3 as well as GP) bone age assessment. BoneXpert software versions 2.4.5.1. (BX2) and 3.2.1. (BX3) (Visiana, Holte, Denmark) were compared with manual evaluation using root mean squared error (RMSE) analysis. Results: RMSE for BX2 was 0.57 and 0.55 years in boys and 0.72 and 0.59 years in girls, respectively for TW3 and GP. For BX3, RMSE was 0.51 and 0.68 years in boys and 0.49 and 0.52 years in girls, respectively for TW3 and GP. Sex- and age-specific analysis for BX2 identified the largest differences between manual and automated TW3 evaluation in girls between 6-7, 12-13, 13-14 and 14-15 years, with RMSE 0.88, 0.81, 0.92 and 0.84 years, respectively. The BX3 version showed better agreement with manual TW3 evaluation (RMSE 0.64, 0.45, 0.46 and 0.57). Conclusion: The latest version of the BoneXpert software provides improved and clinically sufficient agreement with manual bone age evaluation in children of both sexes compared to the previous version and may be used for routine bone age evaluation in non-selected cases in pediatric endocrinology care.

Indexed as

Age Determination by SkeletonSoftwareAdolescentChildFemaleHumansMaleWhite Peoplebone ageBoneXpertGreulich-PyleTanner-Whitehousevalidation study

Identifiers

PMID37033216
PMCPMC10079872
OpenAlexW4360871758

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.