A comparison of bone age assessments using automated and manual methods in children of Indian ethnicity.
Adolescents
Automated
Bone age
BoneXpert
Children
Gender
Greulich and Pyle
Radiography
Tanner–Whitehouse
Young adults
Journal
Pediatric radiology
ISSN: 1432-1998
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0365332
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
17
05
2022
accepted:
07
09
2022
revised:
22
08
2022
pubmed:
20
9
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
19
9
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bone age is useful for pediatric endocrinologists in evaluating various disorders related to growth and puberty. Traditional methods of bone age assessment, namely Greulich and Pyle (GP) and Tanner-Whitehouse (TW), have intra- and interobserver variations. Use of computer-automated methods like BoneXpert might overcome these subjective variations. The aim of our study was to assess the validity of BoneXpert in comparison to manual GP and TW methods for assessing bone age in children of Asian Indian ethnicity. We extracted from a previous study the deidentified left hand radiographs of 920 healthy children aged 2-19 years. We compared bone age as determined by four well-trained manual raters using GP and TW methods with the BoneXpert ratings. We computed accuracy using root mean square error (RMSE) to assess how close the bone age estimated by BoneXpert was to the reference rating. The standard deviations (SDs) of rating among the four manual raters were 0.52 years, 0.52 years and 0.47 years for GP, TW2 and TW3 methods, respectively. The RMSEs between the automated bone age estimates and the true ratings were 0.39 years, 0.41 years and 0.36 years, respectively, for the same methods. The RMSE values were significantly lower in girls than in boys (0.53, 0.5 and 0.47 vs. 0.39, 0.47 and 0.4) by all the methods; however, no such difference was noted in classification by body mass index. The best agreement between BoneXpert and manual rating was obtained by using 50% weight on carpals (GP50). The carpal bone age was retarded in Indian children, more so in boys. BoneXpert was accurate and performed well in estimating bone age by both GP and TW methods in healthy Asian Indian children; the error was larger in boys. The GP50 establishes "backward compatibility" with manual rating.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Bone age is useful for pediatric endocrinologists in evaluating various disorders related to growth and puberty. Traditional methods of bone age assessment, namely Greulich and Pyle (GP) and Tanner-Whitehouse (TW), have intra- and interobserver variations. Use of computer-automated methods like BoneXpert might overcome these subjective variations.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of our study was to assess the validity of BoneXpert in comparison to manual GP and TW methods for assessing bone age in children of Asian Indian ethnicity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We extracted from a previous study the deidentified left hand radiographs of 920 healthy children aged 2-19 years. We compared bone age as determined by four well-trained manual raters using GP and TW methods with the BoneXpert ratings. We computed accuracy using root mean square error (RMSE) to assess how close the bone age estimated by BoneXpert was to the reference rating.
RESULTS
The standard deviations (SDs) of rating among the four manual raters were 0.52 years, 0.52 years and 0.47 years for GP, TW2 and TW3 methods, respectively. The RMSEs between the automated bone age estimates and the true ratings were 0.39 years, 0.41 years and 0.36 years, respectively, for the same methods. The RMSE values were significantly lower in girls than in boys (0.53, 0.5 and 0.47 vs. 0.39, 0.47 and 0.4) by all the methods; however, no such difference was noted in classification by body mass index. The best agreement between BoneXpert and manual rating was obtained by using 50% weight on carpals (GP50). The carpal bone age was retarded in Indian children, more so in boys.
CONCLUSION
BoneXpert was accurate and performed well in estimating bone age by both GP and TW methods in healthy Asian Indian children; the error was larger in boys. The GP50 establishes "backward compatibility" with manual rating.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36123410
doi: 10.1007/s00247-022-05516-2
pii: 10.1007/s00247-022-05516-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2188-2196Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Greulich WS, Pyle SI (1959) Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist, 2nd edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Martin DD, Wit JM, Hochberg Z et al (2011) The use of bone age in clinical practice — part 1. Horm Res Paediatr 76:1–9
doi: 10.1159/000329372
Tanner JM, Healy M, Goldstein H, Cameron N (2001) Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW3 method), 3rd edn. WB Saunders, Harcourt Publishers Ltd., London
Bull RK, Edwards PD, Kemp PM et al (1999) Bone age assessment: a large-scale comparison of the Greulich and Pyle, and Tanner and Whitehouse (TW2) methods. Arch Dis Child 81:172–173
doi: 10.1136/adc.81.2.172
Thodberg H, Kreiborg S, Juul A, Pedersen K (2009) The BoneXpert method for automated determination of skeletal maturity. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28:52–66
doi: 10.1109/TMI.2008.926067
Roche AF, Roberts J, Hamill PV (1975) Skeletal maturity of children 6–11 years: racial, geographic area, and socioeconomic differentials, United States. Vital Health Stat 11 149:1–81
Prokop-Piotrkowska M, Marszałek-Dziuba K, Moszczyńska E et al (2013) Traditional and new methods of bone age assessment — an overview. J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol 13:251–262
doi: 10.4274/jcrpe.galenos.2020.2020.0091
Marcovecchio ML, Chiarelli F (2013) Obesity and growth during childhood and puberty. World Rev Nutr Diet 106:135–141
doi: 10.1159/000342545
Shah N, Khadilkar V, Lohiya N et al (2021) Comparison of bone age assessments by Gruelich–Pyle [sic], Gilsanz–Ratib, and Tanner Whitehouse methods in healthy Indian children. Indian J Endocr Metab 25:240–246
doi: 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_826_20
Indian Academy of Pediatrics Growth Charts Committee, Khadilkar V, Yadav S et al (2015) Revised IAP growth charts for height, weight and body mass index for 5- to 18-year-old Indian children. Indian Pediatr 52:47–55
doi: 10.1007/s13312-015-0566-5
Eitel KB, Eugster EA (2020) Differences in bone age readings between pediatric endocrinologists and radiologists. Endocr Pract 26:328–331
doi: 10.4158/EP-2019-0438
Martin DD, Calder AD, Ranke MB et al (2022) Accuracy and self-validation of automated bone age determination. Sci Rep 12:6388
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10292-y
Mughal AM, Hassan N, Ahmed A (2014) Bone age assessment methods: a critical review. Pak J Med Sci 30:211–215
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
Khadilkar V, Oza C, Khadilkar A (2022) Relationship between height age, bone age and chronological age in normal children in the context of nutritional and pubertal status. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 35:767–775
doi: 10.1515/jpem-2021-0698
Artioli TO, Alvares MA, Carvalho Macedo VS et al (2019) Bone age determination in eutrophic, overweight and obese Brazilian children and adolescents: a comparison between computerized BoneXpert and Greulich–Pyle methods. Pediatr Radiol 49:1185–1191
doi: 10.1007/s00247-019-04435-z
Lepe GP, Villacrés F, Fuente-Alba CS, Guiloff S (2018) [Correlation in radiological bone age determination using the Greulich and Pyle method versus automated evaluation using BoneXpert software]. Rev Chil Pediatr 89:606–611
Zhang J, Lin F, Ding X (2016) Automatic determination of the Greulich–Pyle bone age as an alternative approach for Chinese children with discordant bone age. Horm Res Paediatr 86:83–89
doi: 10.1159/000446434
van Rijn RR, Lequin MH, Thodberg HH (2009) Automatic determination of Greulich and Pyle bone age in healthy Dutch children. Pediatr Radiol 39:591–597
doi: 10.1007/s00247-008-1090-8
Thodberg HH, Sävendahl L (2010) Validation and reference values of automated bone age determination for four ethnicities. Acad Radiol 17:1425–1432
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.06.007
Thodberg HH (2009) Clinical review: an automated method for determination of bone age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94:2239–2244
doi: 10.1210/jc.2008-2474
Zhang SY, Liu G, Ma CG et al (2013) Automated determination of bone age in a modern Chinese population. ISRN Radiol 2013:874570
Martin DD, Sato K, Sato M et al (2010) Validation of a new method for automated determination of bone age in Japanese children. Horm Res Paediatr 73:398–404
doi: 10.1159/000308174
Alshamrani K, Hewitt A, Offiah AC (2020) Applicability of two bone age assessment methods to children from Saudi Arabia. Clin Radiol 75:156e1–156e9
Lakshmanaswamy A (2011) Growth and development. In: Lakshmanaswamy A (ed) Clinical pediatrics history taking and case discussion, 3rd edn. Wolters Kluwer, New Delhi, pp 90–153
Alshamrani K, Messina F, Offiah AC (2019) Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas applicable to all ethnicities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 29:2910–2923
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5792-5
Alshamrani K, Offiah AC (2020) Applicability of two commonly used bone age assessment methods to twenty-first century UK children. Eur Radiol 30:504–513
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06300-x