ArticleEwha medical journal2024
An accurate pediatric bone age prediction model using deep learning and contrast conversion.
Article in Ewha medical journal, 2024. 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.
- How Can Clinicians Leverage Vibe Coding for Machine Learning and Deep Learning Research?Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to develop an accurate pediatric bone age prediction model by utilizing deep learning models and contrast conversion techniques, in order to improve growth assessment and clinical decision-making in clinical practice. Methods: The study employed a variety of deep learning models and contrast conversion techniques to predict bone age. The training dataset consisted of pediatric left-hand X-ray images, each annotated with bone age and sex information. Deep learning models, including a convolutional neural network , Residual Network 50 , Visual Geometry Group 19, Inception V3, and Xception were trained and assessed using the mean absolute error (MAE). For the test data, contrast conversion techniques including fuzzy contrast enhancement, contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization (HE) , and HE were implemented. The quality of the images was evaluated using peak signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), mean squared error, SNR, coefficient of variation, and contrast-to-noise ratio metrics. The bone age prediction results using the test data were evaluated based on the MAE and root mean square error, and the t-test was performed. Results: The Xception model showed the best performance (MAE=41.12). HE exhibited superior image quality, with higher SNR and coefficient of variation values than other methods. Additionally, HE demonstrated the highest contrast among the techniques assessed, with a contrast-to-noise ratio value of 1.29. Improvements in bone age prediction resulted in a decline in MAE from 2.11 to 0.24, along with a decrease in root mean square error from 0.21 to 0.02. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that preprocessing the data before model training does not significantly affect the performance of bone age prediction when comparing contrast-converted images with original images.
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.