| Literature DB >> 24454534 |
Marjan Mansourvar1, Maizatul Akmar Ismail1, Tutut Herawan1, Ram Gopal Raj2, Sameem Abdul Kareem2, Fariza Hanum Nasaruddin1.
Abstract
Bone age assessment (BAA) of unknown people is one of the most important topics in clinical procedure for evaluation of biological maturity of children. BAA is performed usually by comparing an X-ray of left hand wrist with an atlas of known sample bones. Recently, BAA has gained remarkable ground from academia and medicine. Manual methods of BAA are time-consuming and prone to observer variability. This is a motivation for developing automated methods of BAA. However, there is considerable research on the automated assessment, much of which are still in the experimental stage. This survey provides taxonomy of automated BAA approaches and discusses the challenges. Finally, we present suggestions for future research.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24454534 PMCID: PMC3876824 DOI: 10.1155/2013/391626
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
A comparison of automated approaches in BAA.
| Approaches | Year | Inventor | Method | Advantage | Disadvantage | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HANDX system | 1989 | Micheal and Nelson | Segmentation and isolated | Reduced observation variability | No reasonable accuracy | [ |
| PROI-based system | 1991 | Pietka et al. | Segmentation of phalanges and epiphyses | Low mean difference and error rate | Evaluated in small scale | [ |
| The CASAS system | 1994 | Tanner and Gibbons | Based on the TW2 RUS method | More accurate than manual TW method | Did not work for assessing with pathological problem | [ |
| Middle phalanx of the third finger | 2002 | Niemeijer | Segmentation of middle phalanx of third finger utilized the active shape model | Accuracy of 73% to 80% compared with an observer | Only covered the children between 9 and 17 years | [ |
| Neural network system based on linear | 1995 | Gross et al. | Based on linear distance measures | Better correlation coefficients | Did not use morphological feature | [ |
| Phalanges length based system | 1990 | Pietka et al. | Segmentation of phalangeal length or carpal | Reduce subjective decision | Depends on the reference population group | [ |
| The third digit-three epiphyses | 1999 | Sato et al. | Analyzing the bones of the third digit | Reasonable accuracy | Covered the children between 2 and 15 years | [ |
| Phalanges, epiphyses, and carpals | 1999 | Hsien et al. | Based on phalangeal region of interest (PROI) | Low error rate | Poor image processing techniques | [ |
| Mahmoodi model | 2000 | Mahmoodi et al. | Analysis phalangeal and active shape model | Reduced the risk in assessing the bone age by using the Bayes risk principle | Capability of further progress | [ |
| Neural network classifiers using RUS and carpal | 2008 | Liu et al. | Based on RUS and carpal bones | Small standard deviation of the differences | High image processing loading | [ |
| Neural network based on the radius and ulna | 2008 | Tristàn-Vega and Arribas | Adaptive clustering technique for segmentation | Improving the bone segmentation | Limited to four TW3 levels | [ |
| Neural network analysis based on the epiphyses and carpal | 1995 | Rucci et al. | Based on the TW method and using the epiphyses and carpal | Useful technique for classification in TW2 method. | Neural network system started in dumb state | [ |
| The royal orthopaedic hospital skeletal ageing System | 1994 | Hill and Pynsent | Based on the 13-bone and 20-bone TW2 method | Reliable method for BAA | Small group of sample images | [ |
| BoneXpert system | 2009 | Thodberg et al. | Based on shape driven and the TW RUS based | High accuracy | Rejects images in poor quality | [ |
| Web-based system using histogram | 2012 | Mansourvar et al. | Based on the histogram technique | Remove the segmentation method | Not reliable for images with poor image quality or abnormal bone structure | [ |
Comparison of accuracy (error rate) between automated approaches in BAA.
| Number | Comparison of error rate in years | |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Error rate | |
| 1 | Mansourvar et al. [ | Error rate is about 0.170625 years |
| 2 | Thodberg et al. [ | 0.42 years for using the GP method and 0.80 years for using the TW2 method |
| 3 | Hill and Pynsent [ | Error rate is about 0.5 years |
| 4 | Rucci et al. [ | Error rate is about 0.7 years |
| 5 | Mahmoodi et al. [ | Bone age accuracies of (82 ± 3) % for males and (84 ± 3) % for females |
| 6 | Hsien et al. [ | The accuracy was evaluated to be 85% |
| 7 | Pietka et al. [ | Error rate is roughly 1 year |
Figure 1A general model of the automated bone age assessment systems.
Figure 2System procedure for bone age assessment using histogram technique.