ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Magnetic resonance imaging for multi-factorial age estimation using Bayes' rule: a validation study in two independent samples.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. 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.
- Subclassification of Vieth stage 4 in MRI of the proximal tibial epiphysis: a pilot study for forensic age estimation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Integrating cervical vertebral maturation and spheno-occipital synchondrosis on CT: a non-linear framework for probabilistic age estimation.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMulti-factorial age estimation (MFA) models have been developed based on Bayes' rule, combining MRI data of the third molars (T), left wrist (W) and/or both clavicles (C). Internal cross-validated performance was reported, but external validation is needed before bringing the approach into practice. This study aimed to validate these MFA models in two independent samples.
methodsIn the Ghent sample, W + C MRI was prospectively conducted in 108 healthy Caucasian volunteers (52 males, 56 females) aged 16 to 21 years. In the Graz sample, T + W + C MRI was prospectively conducted in 335 healthy Caucasian males aged 13 to 24 years. Development was staged and checked for intra-observer reliability, and age estimation performances were tested.
resultsStaging clavicles was most prone to intra-observer variability. Applying the W + C model to Ghent males rendered a mean absolute error of 1.55 years, a root mean square error of 1.90 years, 70.6% correctly categorised adults and 94.4% correctly categorised minors. In females, the results were 1.49 years, 1.83 years, 92.1% and 66.7%, respectively. Regarding the Graz sample, the W + C results were 1.66 years, 2.08 years, 94.7% and 80.7%, respectively. For the T + W + C model, the results were 1.41 years, 1.80 years, 95.2% and 81.5%, respectively.
conclusionThe T + W + C and W + C models rendered a similar accuracy of the point prediction of age in both validation samples. However, they bared a larger risk of wrongfully categorising a minor as an adult than reported for internal validation, stressing the importance of the prediction interval for age estimation in practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40289208What 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.