ArticlePediatric radiology2026
Agreement between three state-of-the-art deep learning bone age estimation models and chronological age in a large contemporary pediatric cohort.
Article in Pediatric 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiographic bone age estimation is routinely performed in children to evaluate short stature, early or late puberty, and endocrine disorders, as well as for surgical planning.
objectiveTo evaluate agreement between three state-of-the-art deep learning bone age estimation models and chronological age in a large contemporary pediatric cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively identified a large contemporary cohort of children (n=7,189; 3,669 females and 3,520 males) aged 24-216 months (mean 143.6±46.2 months) with consecutive radiologically normal hand (including the wrist) radiographs that were evaluated for trauma between November 1, 2010, and October 31, 2020. Bone age was estimated according to Greulich and Pyle (GP) Atlas standards using three state-of-the-art deep learning models (Stanford University, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) , and MedImageInsight models), each producing continuous bone age estimates in months. Mean and proportional bias relative to chronological age were assessed.
resultsAll three models systematically overestimated chronological age, although the magnitude of bias varied by model and sex. The CCHMC model demonstrated the smallest overall mean bias (+3.20 months), followed by the MedImageInsight (+4.60 months) and Stanford (+7.03 months) models. Mean differences compared with chronological age were statistically significant for all models (P<0.0001). Evidence of proportional bias was observed in most models and subgroups. For all three models, the difference between predicted bone age and chronological age was greater for Black compared to White and Hispanic compared to non-Hispanic children.
conclusionGP Atlas-based bone age models systematically overestimate chronological age in a large contemporary cohort of children undergoing hand radiography for trauma, with biases related to age, sex, race, and ethnicity.
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.