ArticleAdvances in therapy2024
Validation of an AI-Powered Automated X-ray Bone Age Analyzer in Chinese Children and Adolescents: A Comparison with the Tanner-Whitehouse 3 Method.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative efficacy of quarterly vs. monthly triptorelin in Chinese girls with central precocious puberty: a 12-month observational study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Observational
- Automated Bone Age Assessment and Adult Height Prediction from Pediatric Hand Radiographs via a Cascaded Deep Learning Framework.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- AI-powered automated X-ray bone age analyzer for assisting bone age assessment in Chinese children and adolescents: accuracy, consistency, and time efficiency.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of an Artificial Intelligence Software for the Evaluation of Bone X-Ray Examinations Referred from the Emergency Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAutomated bone age assessment (BAA) is of growing interest because of its accuracy and time efficiency in daily practice. In this study, we validated the clinical applicability of a commercially available artificial intelligence (AI)-powered X-ray bone age analyzer equipped with a deep learning-based automated BAA system and compared its performance with that of the Tanner-Whitehouse 3 (TW-3) method.
methodsRadiographs prospectively collected from 30 centers across various regions in China, including 900 Chinese children and adolescents, were assessed independently by six doctors (three experts and three residents) and an AI analyzer for TW3 radius, ulna, and short bones (RUS) and TW3 carpal bone age. The experts' mean estimates were accepted as the gold standard. The performance of the AI analyzer was compared with that of each resident.
resultsFor the estimation of TW3-RUS, the AI analyzer had a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.48 ± 0.42. The percentage of patients with an absolute error of < 1.0 years was 86.78%. The MAE was significantly lower than that of rater 1 (0.54 ± 0.49, P = 0.0068); however, it was not significant for rater 2 (0.48 ± 0.48) or rater 3 (0.49 ± 0.46). For TW3 carpal, the AI analyzer had an MAE of 0.48 ± 0.65. The percentage of patients with an absolute error of < 1.0 years was 88.78%. The MAE was significantly lower than that of rater 2 (0.58 ± 0.67, P = 0.0018) and numerically lower for rater 1 (0.54 ± 0.64) and rater 3 (0.50 ± 0.53). These results were consistent for the subgroups according to sex, and differences between the age groups were observed.
conclusionIn this comprehensive validation study conducted in China, an AI-powered X-ray bone age analyzer showed accuracies that matched or exceeded those of doctor raters. This method may improve the efficiency of clinical routines by reducing reading time without compromising accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39085749What 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.