ArticleJournal of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism : JPEM2026
A comparative study of the interpretation results of different artificial intelligence bone age assessment software.
Article in Journal of pediatric endocrinology & metabolism : JPEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the interpretation results of different AI bone age assessment software using the TW3 (Tanner-Whitehouse 3) method.
methodsThe comprehensive analysis included bone age readings for various age groups (3-17 years) using five methods: reference-TW3, YIZHUN-TW3, LIANYING-TW3, AIBAA-TW3, and manual-TW3. Researchers calculated mean values and standard deviations, employed linear regression analysis for predictive accuracy comparison, and generated Bland-Altman plots to assess agreement with the reference standard.
resultsThe comparative analysis of different TW3 methods revealed distinct variations in predictive accuracy. Notably, the YIZHUN-TW3 and LIANYING-TW3 models exhibited exceptional predictive accuracy, with multiple R-squared values indicating strong correlation with the reference standard (0.9861 for both methods). This was markedly higher than the AIBAA-TW3 model, which had a multiple R-squared value of 0.9591, and the manual-TW3 method with 0.9732. Statistical significance testing further confirmed the superiority of YIZHUN-TW3 and LIANYING-TW3, with p-values < 0.001 in linear regression analysis, while AIBAA-TW3 and manual-TW3 showed non-significant results in some comparisons. The AIBAA-TW3 model consistently predicted lower bone ages across various age groups, particularly in teenagers, with a notable underestimation trend. This pattern was supported by Bland-Altman analysis, which showed a mean difference of -0.6928 years for AIBAA-TW3, indicating a substantial underestimation.
conclusionsThe study highlights the advanced predictive accuracy and reliability of the YIZHUN-TW3 and LIANYING-TW3 methods in bone age assessment. While the AIBAA-TW3 method showed strong predictive power, its consistent underestimation trend suggests a need for recalibration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41321009What 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.