ArticleScientific reports2025
Population-specific calibration and validation of an open-source bone age AI.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated segmentation and length measurement of metacarpal and phalangeal bones for hand radiograph evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- External Validation of Deeplasia for Automated Bone Age Assessment Compared with Four Commercial AI Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bone age assessment: comparative analysis of Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse 3 by pediatric radiologists and endocrinologists.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Automated bone age assessment in rare pediatric growth disorders: a comparative study using Deeplasia.Frontiers in endocrinology · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing skeletal maturity through bone age (BA) evaluation is crucial for monitoring children's growth and guiding treatments, such as hormonal therapy and orthopedic interventions. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) methods have been developed to automate BA assessment. However, bone growth patterns may vary by ancestry, and many AI models are trained on limited population datasets, raising concerns about their applicability to populations not included in the training process. To address this shortcoming for the case of the Georgian population, we retrospectively collected 381 pediatric hand X-rays and established a manual BA reference rating from seven local pediatric radiologists and endocrinologists. We then used a subset of 121 images to perform a sex-specific linear calibration of the open-source AI, Deeplasia, creating Deeplasia-GE. On the held-out test set (n = 260), the default version of Deeplasia achieved a mean absolute difference (MAD) of 6.57 months, which improved to 5.69 months after calibration. We observed that the default Deeplasia overestimates the BA in the Georgian cohort with a signed mean difference (SMD) of + 2.85 and + 5.35 months for females and males respectively, which after calibration is significantly reduced to -0.03 and + 0.58 months for females and males, respectively. We find that Deeplasia-GE has a smaller error than all the raters and, by design, Deeplasia-GE inherits the high test-retest reliability from Deeplasia. These findings suggest that Deeplasia-GE is a reliable AI-based BA assessment method for Georgian children.
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.