ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2026
Agreement and Screening Performance of an App-Based Cranial Shape Assessment Tool Compared With a 3D Scanner in Municipal Child Health Checkups in Japan: Instrument Validation Study.
Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Positional cranial deformities are common in infancy. Smartphone-based apps are increasingly used to assess infant head shape, but evidence comparing these tools with 3D scanners across age groups in community-based settings remains limited. Objective: This study evaluated age-stratified agreement and screening performance of a mobile app for estimating Cranial Vault Asymmetry Index (CVAI) and Cephalic Index, compared with a 3D scanner, when used by a trained examiner during routine municipal health checkups in Japan. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study in Goto City, Japan, between May 2023 and March 2025. Independent, age-specific cohorts of children attending municipal health checkups at 4, 18, and 42 months were included. Paired cranial measurements were obtained by a trained examiner using a VECTRA H2 3D scanner (Canfield Scientific Inc) and the mobile app. Agreement was assessed using mean differences, 95% limits of agreement (LoA), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with device-stratified sensitivity analyses. Screening performance was evaluated using sensitivity and specificity based on prespecified clinical thresholds. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were secondary exploratory analyses. The primary outcome was app-based CVAI for detecting scanner-defined moderate-or-worse plagiocephaly (CVAI≥7%). Secondary outcomes were app-based Cephalic Index for detecting brachycephaly (Cephalic Index>94%) and dolichocephaly (Cephalic Index<79%). Results: The final analytic samples comprised 262 children at 4 months, 171 at 18 months, and 216 at 42 months. Agreement for continuous CVAI was highest at 4 months (mean difference 0.14, 95% LoA -4.18 to 4.46; ICC 0.76, 95% CI 0.71-0.81) and lower at 18 months (ICC 0.42, 95% CI 0.29-0.54) and 42 months (ICC 0.49, 95% CI 0.38-0.59). For Cephalic Index, the app consistently overestimated values relative to the scanner, with mean differences of 3.83 SD 3.42, 3.24 SD 3.07, and 2.61 SD 3.33 points at 4, 18, and 42 months, respectively. For detecting scanner-defined moderate-or-worse plagiocephaly, app sensitivity and specificity were 84.8% and 88.0% at 4 months, 50.0% and 88.4% at 18 months, and 53.3% and 89.6% at 42 months, respectively. Device-stratified analyses showed some variation in measurement agreement and screening performance across devices. Conclusions: Under municipal health checkup conditions with a trained examiner, app-based CVAI showed the strongest performance at 4 months and may be useful for early screening. However, performance was weaker at 18 and 42 months. App-based Cephalic Index was systematically higher than scanner-based Cephalic Index, potentially increasing false-positive classifications for brachycephaly when identical thresholds are applied. Performance varied somewhat between devices, although device effects could not be separated from study period and accumulated examiner experience. Positive findings, particularly at later ages or for Cephalic Index-based measures, should be interpreted in the context of the child's age and broader clinical findings, with further evaluation or referral considered only when clinically indicated.
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.