Artificial intelligence algorithm for bone age estimation
Main Article Content
Keywords
Artificial Intelligence, Age Determination by Skeleton, Radiography, Child, Adolescents
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Bone age (BA) estimation with automated methods can eliminate interindividual variation.
Objective: To evaluate BA by creating an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm in a pediatric population from the Bajío region of Mexico.
Material and methods: Observational, cross-sectional, retrospective, analytical study. Left-hand radiographs of children under 18 years of age, obtained from the Radiology Department database were included to create the AI algorithm for estimating BA. The BA result obtained by AI was compared with that obtained by 2 expert observers using the Greulich and Pyle method.
Results: 271 radiographs were analyzed to assess BA and this was similar between observers 1, 2, and AI when considering all images (p = 0.68). The time taken to estimate BA was longer with AI (p < 0.001). AI measurement showed no differences between chronological age (CA) and BA when considering both the total number of images (p = 0.12) and when they were distributed by age group: < 6 years, 6 to < 10 years, and ≥ 10 years (p = 0.60, p = 0.06, p = 0.67, respectively). The highest EO concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were recorded when all images were evaluated (observer 1 and 2, observer 1 and AI, and observer 2 and AI [p < 0.001, in all 3 scenarios]).
Conclusions: The AI algorithm allows for objective estimation of BA in children and adolescents as a first training approach; its refinement will optimize its use and utility in clinical practice.
References
1. Jani G, Patel B. Charting the growth through intelligence: A SWOC analysis on AI-assisted radiologic bone age estimation. Int J Legal Med. 2025;139(2):679-94. doi: 10.1007/s00414-024-03356-3
2. Pose Lepe G, Villacres F, Silva Fuente-Alba C, et al. Correlación en la determinación de la edad ósea radiológica mediante el método de Greulich y Pyle versus la evaluación automatizada utilizando el software BoneXpert. Rev. Chil. Pediatr. 2018;89(5):606-11. doi: 10.4067/S0370-41062018005000705
3. Núñez-Enríquez JC, Arias-Gómez J, Nishimura-Meguro E. Proceso diagnóstico en talla baja. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2012;50(6):623-30.
4. Kowo-Nyakoko F, Gregson CL, Madanhire T, et al. Evaluation of two methods of bone age assessment in peripubertal children in Zimbabwe. Bone. 2023;170:116725. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2023.116725
5. Akın Kağızmanlı G, Deveci Sevim R, Besci Ö, et al. Which method is more effective in predicting adult height in pubertal girls treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist? Hormones (Athens). 2023;22(3):501-6. doi: 10.1007/s42000-023-00466-2
6. Haghnegahdar A, Pakshir HR, Zandieh M, et al. Computer Assisted Bone Age Estimation Using Dimensions of Metacarpal Bones and Metacarpophalangeal Joints Based on Neural Network. J Dent (Shiraz). 2024;25(1):51-8. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2023.95629.1882
7. Lee BD, Lee MS. Automated Bone Age Assessment Using Artificial Intelligence: The Future of Bone Age Assessment. Korean J Radiol. 2021;22(5):792-800. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2020.0941
8. Larson DB, Chen MC, Lungren MP, et al. Performance of a Deep-Learning Neural Network Model in Assessing Skeletal Maturity on Pediatric Hand Radiographs. Radiology. 2018;287(1):313-22. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170236
9. Jiménez Alés R. Artificial Intelligence. Challenges and concerns . Rev Pediatr Aten Primaria. 2023;25:205-10.
10. Zhao K, Ma S, Sun Z, et al. Effect of AI-assisted software on inter- and intra-observer variability for the X-ray bone age assessment of preschool children. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):644. doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03727-y
11. Artioli TO, Alvares MA, Carvalho Macedo VS, et al. Bone age determination in eutrophic, overweight and obese Brazilian children and adolescents: a comparison between computerized BoneXpert and Greulich-Pyle methods. Pediatr Radiol. 2019;49(9):1185-91. doi: 10.1007/s00247-019-04435-z
12. Nguyen T, Hermann AL, Ventre J, et al. High performance for bone age estimation with an artificial intelligence solution. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2023;104(7-8):330-6. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2023.04.003
13. Garrido-Pino CA, López-Montero LM, López-Lozano L, et al. Edema macular en fotografías de fondo de ojo mediante un algoritmo computacional. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2024;62(2):1-7. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10711610
14. Rodríguez-Esquivel M, Mendoza-Rodríguez MG, Hernández-Quijano T, et al. La innovación sensorial para detección no invasiva del cáncer de mama. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2020;58(Supl 1):S104-15. doi: 10.24875/RMIMSS.M20000121
15. Hassan N, Slight R, Morgan G, et al. Road map for clinicians to develop and evaluate AI predictive models to inform clinical decision-making. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2023;30(1):e100784. doi: 10.1136/bmjhci-2023-100784
16. Chávez-Vázquez AG, Klünder-Klünder M, Garibay-Nieto NG et al. Evaluation of height prediction models: from traditional methods to artificial intelligence. Pediatr Res. 2024;95:308-15. doi: 10.1038/s41390-023-02821-w
17. Yang C, Dai W, Qin B, et al. A real-time automated bone age assessment system based on the RUS-CHN method. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1073219. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1073219
18. Huang S, Su Z, Liu S, et al. Combined assisted bone age assessment and adult height prediction methods in Chinese girls with early puberty: analysis of three artificial intelligence systems. Pediatr Radiol. 2023;53(6):1108-16. doi: 10.1007/s00247-022-05569-3
19. Alshamrani K, Hewitt A, Offiah AC. Applicability of two bone age assessment methods to children from Saudi Arabia. Clin Radiol. 2020;75(2):156.e1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.08.029
20. Lea WW, Hong SJ, Nam HK, et al. External validation of deep learning-based bone-age software: a preliminary study with real world data. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1232. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-05282-z
