Observational studyRevista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social2026
[Artificial intelligence algorithm for bone age estimation].
Observational study in Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bone age (BA) estimation with automated methods can eliminate interindividual variation. Objective: To evaluate BA by creating an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm in a pediatric population from the Bajío region of Mexico. Material and methods: Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective, analytical study. Left-hand radiographs of children under 18 years of age, obtained from the Radiology Department database were included to create the AI algorithm for estimating BA. The BA result obtained by AI was compared with that obtained by 2 expert observers using the Greulich and Pyle method. Results: 271 radiographs were analyzed to assess BA and this was similar between observers 1, 2, and AI when considering all images (p = 0.68). The time taken to estimate BA was longer with AI (p < 0.001). AI measurement showed no differences between chronological age (CA) and BA when considering both the total number of images (p = 0.12) and when they were distributed by age group: < 6 years, 6 to < 10 years, and ≥ 10 years (p = 0.60, p = 0.06, p = 0.67, respectively). The highest EO concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were recorded when all images were evaluated (observer 1 and 2, observer 1 and AI, and observer 2 and AI [p < 0.001, in all 3 scenarios]). Conclusions: The AI algorithm allows for objective estimation of BA in children and adolescents as a first training approach; its refinement will optimize its use and utility in 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.