ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing Pediatric Bone Age Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Orthopedic Surgery.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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 study of the performance of two versions of the same AI tool for pediatric skeletal maturation assessment.European radiology · 2026Article
- Bone age assessment: comparative analysis of Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse 3 by pediatric radiologists and endocrinologists.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Translational Readiness-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Formulation Strategies for Immunomodulatory Natural Products in 3D Tumor Spheroids and Organoids: Current Challenges and Emerging Solutions.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- Ultrasound-based bone age assessment in children and adolescents: a mini-review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
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
Background Bone age assessment is a critical tool in pediatric orthopedic surgery, guiding treatment decisions for growth-related disorders and surgical interventions. Traditional methods, such as the Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse techniques, rely on manual interpretation of hand and wrist radiographs, making them time-intensive and susceptible to inter-operator variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to enhance accuracy, efficiency, and standardization in skeletal maturity assessment. Methods This study evaluates the application of AI in pediatric bone age prediction using the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) 2017 Pediatric Bone Age Challenge dataset. A deep learning model based on the ResNet-50 architecture (Microsoft Research, Redmond, Washington, USA) was developed and trained on 12,611 hand and wrist radiographs, validated on 1,425 images, and tested on 200 images. Model performance was assessed using root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and coefficient of determination (R²). Results The AI model achieved an RMSE of 11.07 months, an MAE of 8.54 months, and an R² of 0.929, indicating strong alignment with radiologist-determined bone ages. The Pearson correlation coefficient (0.963) and Spearman's rank correlation (0.955) confirmed the model's predictive robustness. Compared to traditional methods, which have reported variability with errors ranging from 6 to 18 months, the AI model demonstrated a reduction in inter-operator variability and improved reliability. Conclusion The implementation of AI in bone age assessment offers a more standardized, rapid, and precise alternative to conventional methods. By improving the accuracy and efficiency of skeletal maturity evaluations, AI has significant implications for pediatric orthopedic surgery, optimizing treatment timing and expanding access to high-quality bone age assessments. Further validation studies are needed to ensure clinical applicability across diverse patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.