ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Analysis of Bone Age Estimation Using the Manual Greulich and Pyle Method Versus Artificial Intelligence Algorithms in an Indian Pediatric Population Aged 1-18 Years.
Article in Cureus, 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
introductionBone age (BA) estimation is an essential tool in pediatric growth assessment and endocrine evaluation. The study aimed to compare the performance and agreement of three artificial intelligence (AI)-based bone age assessment software platforms with the manual Greulich and Pyle (GP) atlas method in an Indian pediatric population. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-four hand radiographs from children aged 1-18 years were analyzed retrospectively. BA was assessed using the manual GP atlas and three automated AI software platforms: Xrayhead (AI1), 16-Bit Physis (AI2), and FreeBoneAge (AI3). Statistical evaluation included Pearson correlation, Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and Bland-Altman analysis to determine agreement and systematic bias between methods.
resultsAll AI platforms showed significant correlation with the manual GP atlas (p < 0.001). Among the evaluated systems, 16-Bit Physis demonstrated the strongest agreement with GP assessment (ICC = 0.983, 95% CI: 0.973-0.989), the narrowest limits of agreement (3.53 years), and the lowest AI-related mean absolute error (1.24 years). FreeBoneAge showed good agreement (ICC = 0.903) but wider limits of agreement, whereas Xrayhead demonstrated only moderate agreement (ICC = 0.729) and produced unreliable outputs in children younger than six years. The manual GP method achieved the lowest overall mean absolute error relative to chronological age (0.76 years).
conclusion16-Bit Physis AI demonstrated the most reliable agreement with the GP atlas across all age groups and both sexes, with clinically acceptable bias and narrow limits of agreement. Xrayhead showed critical limitations in young children.
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.