ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Comparative study of the performance of two versions of the same AI tool for pediatric skeletal maturation assessment.
Article in European radiology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare BoneXpert version 3 with version 2 in estimating bone age and bone health index (BHI), focusing on mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) in healthy children. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 449 healthy children: 231 females aged 2.11-15.88 years (mean 8.84) and 218 males aged 3.09-15.94 years (mean 9.55). Bone age was assessed using both versions. Chronological age was recorded, and correlations between estimated and chronological ages were calculated (R
resultsBoth versions showed strong correlations with chronological age (R
conclusionBoth BoneXpert versions are effective for bone age assessment in healthy children, with similar accuracy. Version 3 produces higher and more variable bone age SDS values and extends SDS reporting to younger ages. KEY POINTS: Question The reliability of the new version of the AI-supported program for bone age estimation in children needs to be evaluated. Findings In a sample of 449 healthy children, version 3 yields higher and more variable bone age SDS values and expands SDS availability to younger ages. Clinical relevance This comparative study draws the reader's attention to the fact that the modifications applied to the AI-supported program for bone age estimation are not always available to the users, and that its reliability and accuracy need to be validated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41498826What 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.