ReviewHealthcare technology letters
A Comprehensive Review of Artificial Intelligence Methods in Bone Age Assessment.
Review in Healthcare technology letters. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- External Validation of Deeplasia for Automated Bone Age Assessment Compared with Four Commercial AI Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI in Musculoskeletal Imaging: An End-to-End Perspective.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Artificial Intelligence Methods in Bone Age Assessment.Healthcare technology lettersReview
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
Bone age reflects individual skeletal maturity and is an important factor in the follow-up and monitoring of growth and development in children. Determination of bone age by paediatricians has remained one of the most typical indications that require the use of radiology, and the historical method by which radiologists determine bone age is from a bone age atlas. However, there are still some challenges. The limited case diversity related to race, geography, and age distribution; small sample sizes; and the lack of expert validation by multiple radiologists limit the generalisability of current models. Many underlying comorbidities or health histories are often overlooked in developed models. The models of the future, which provide greater accuracy and clinical usefulness, must encompass more diverse datasets, more thorough health histories, expert validation, and fast but reliable artificial intelligence (AI) models. As an educational review, this study analysed a variety of AI-based approaches that have emerged in the past several years for paediatric bone age assessment (most using hand and wrist radiographs and often coupled with radiology reports). Of these, models such as RCNN, which we evaluated with mean absolute error, showed great potential. There are great future clinical applications and advancements that can progressively transform bone age assessment and evaluation from AI. Notably, we did identify the gaps and opportunities for potentially improving the future clinical approach of bone age assessment and evaluation.
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.