ArticleScientific reports2025
Predicting biological sex in pediatric skeleton X-rays using artificial intelligence.
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 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.
- Multi-task learning for forensic age and sex estimation using large foundation models on pelvic radiographs: a multi-center study.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied in medical imaging, yet its ability to predict biological sex from pediatric radiographs remains unclear. This study investigates the performance of convolutional neural network (CNN) models in sex classification using a large dataset of pediatric trauma imaging and compares results with human raters. Radiographs from computed and digital radiography systems were processed to normalize grayscale and enhance contrast. The EfficientNet family of CNN models (B0-B7) was trained on this dataset, with attention to balancing the test set by age, sex, and fracture visibility. A subset of 1,000 images was independently assessed by human raters for comparison. AI models achieved a mean precision of 0.731 ± 0.035, recall of 0.718 ± 0.110, accuracy of 0.722 ± 0.032, and F1-score of 0.724 ± 0.050 across all network variants. Performance improved with age, peaking in the 13-18 group. Pelvic X-rays achieved the highest classification metrics. Human raters showed significantly lower agreement. AI can classify biological sex from pediatric radiographs with high accuracy, surpassing human performance. Results vary by age and body region, supporting the potential for AI-assisted imaging in pediatric clinical practice.
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.