Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42868593›Full record

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.

Yui Honda, Mai Takeshita, Hiroki Kajita, Yoriko Kotoku, Kayo Ueda, Shigeharu Hosono, Hiromi Eto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Yui HondaDepartment of Reproductive Health, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3035-0536
Mai TakeshitaDepartment of Implementation Science in Public Health, Kyoto University School of Public Health, Kyoto University, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 6068501, Japan, 81 9069022390.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1850-6301
Hiroki KajitaDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keio University School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3267-5884
Yoriko KotokuDepartment of Nursing Sciences, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4691-4568
Kayo UedaDepartment of Reproductive Health, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7986-2441
Shigeharu HosonoDepartment of Pediatrics, Nerima Hikarigaoka Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5319-6153
Hiromi EtoDepartment of Reproductive Health, Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2652-4000

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

3D imagingcephalic indexcranial vault asymmetry indexinfantsmobile appsplagiocephalyreproducibilityscreening performancesensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID42868593
PMCPMC13662245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.