ArticleSA journal of radiology2025
Comparison of bone age assessment using manual Greulich and Pyle method versus automated BoneXpert method in South African children.
Article in SA journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Greulich and Pyle (GP) method is the most commonly used manual bone age assessment method but it is associated with interrater variability. The BoneXpert method is fully automated, eliminates interrater variability and has been validated for use in various populations. Objectives: To compare the manual GP method with the automated BoneXpert method in performing bone age assessment of children with various paediatric endocrinology diagnoses. Method: Three manual readers performed manual bone age assessment, and BoneXpert software performed automated bone age assessment on 260 left hand-wrist radiographs. Images where the average of three manual readers (Manual BA) deviated from BoneXpert BA by > 1.5 years, were re-read by an external reader, producing a Reference BA. Manual BA was compared to Carpal BA that was produced by the software. A composite bone age (Comp BA) for the software was defined to estimate the weighting on carpal and tubular bones to achieve the best agreement with Manual BA. Results: The interclass correlation (ICC) between each manual reader was > 0.9, indicating a high positive correlation. The ICC between Manual BA and BoneXpert BA was 0.982. The Comp BA for BoneXpert that would achieve the best fit with Manual BA, places a 50% weighting on Carpal BA and 50% weighting on Tubular BA. Conclusion: The BoneXpert method is efficient, well-validated and shows a positive correlation with the manual GP method. An estimated weightage of 50% to carpal bones and 50% to tubular bones resulted in an automated Comp BA with the best agreement with Manual BA. Contribution: This original research article compares manual and automated bone age assessment methods to evaluate the use of artificial intelligence tools in the South African context.
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.