Mina Gerges1, Hayley Eng2, Harpreet Chhina1,3, Anthony Cooper4,5. 1. Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Faculty of Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, BC Children's Hospital, 1D 64 4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V4, Canada. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, BC Children's Hospital, 1D 64 4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3V4, Canada. externalfixators@cw.bc.ca. 5. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. externalfixators@cw.bc.ca.
Abstract
Greulich and Pyle (GP) is one of the most common methods to determine bone age from hand radiographs. In recent years, new methods were developed to increase the efficiency in bone age analysis like the shorthand bone age (SBA) and automated artificial intelligence algorithms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of these two methods and examine if the reduction in analysis time compromises their efficacy. METHODS: Two hundred thirteen males and 213 females had their bone age determined by two separate raters using the SBA and GP methods. Three weeks later, the two raters repeated the analysis of the radiographs. The raters timed themselves using an online stopwatch. De-identified radiographs were securely uploaded to an automated algorithm developed by a group of radiologists in Toronto. The gold standard was determined to be the radiology report attached to each radiograph, written by experienced radiologists using GP. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation between each method and the gold standard fell within the range of 0.8-0.9, highlighting significant agreement. Most of the comparisons showed a statistically significant difference between the new methods and the gold standard; however, it may not be clinically significant as it ranges between 0.25 and 0.5 years. A bone age is considered clinically abnormal if it falls outside 2 standard deviations of the chronological age; standard deviations are calculated and provided in GP atlas. CONCLUSION: The shorthand bone age method and the automated algorithm produced values that are in agreement with the gold standard while reducing analysis time.
Greulich and Pyle (GP) is one of the most common methods to determine bone age from hand radiographs. In recent years, new methods were developed to increase the efficiency in bone age analysis like the shorthand bone age (SBA) and automated artificial intelligence algorithms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of these two methods and examine if the reduction in analysis time compromises their efficacy. METHODS: Two hundred thirteen males and 213 females had their bone age determined by two separate raters using the SBA and GP methods. Three weeks later, the two raters repeated the analysis of the radiographs. The raters timed themselves using an online stopwatch. De-identified radiographs were securely uploaded to an automated algorithm developed by a group of radiologists in Toronto. The gold standard was determined to be the radiology report attached to each radiograph, written by experienced radiologists using GP. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation between each method and the gold standard fell within the range of 0.8-0.9, highlighting significant agreement. Most of the comparisons showed a statistically significant difference between the new methods and the gold standard; however, it may not be clinically significant as it ranges between 0.25 and 0.5 years. A bone age is considered clinically abnormal if it falls outside 2 standard deviations of the chronological age; standard deviations are calculated and provided in GP atlas. CONCLUSION: The shorthand bone age method and the automated algorithm produced values that are in agreement with the gold standard while reducing analysis time.
Keywords:
16 bit; Bone age; Greulich and Pyle; Shorthand bone age
Authors: Benton E Heyworth; Daniel A Osei; Peter D Fabricant; Robert Schneider; Shevaun M Doyle; Daniel W Green; Roger F Widmann; Stephen Lyman; Stephen W Burke; David M Scher Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Daniel Wittschieber; Volker Vieth; Christoph Domnick; Heidi Pfeiffer; Andreas Schmeling Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Marina R Makarov; Taylor J Jackson; Connor M Smith; Chan-Hee Jo; John G Birch Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: David D Martin; Jan M Wit; Ze'ev Hochberg; Lars Sävendahl; Rick R van Rijn; Oliver Fricke; Noël Cameron; Janina Caliebe; Thomas Hertel; Daniela Kiepe; Kerstin Albertsson-Wikland; Hans Henrik Thodberg; Gerhard Binder; Michael B Ranke Journal: Horm Res Paediatr Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: David D Martin; Jan M Wit; Ze'ev Hochberg; Rick R van Rijn; Oliver Fricke; George Werther; Noël Cameron; Thomas Hertel; Stefan A Wudy; Gary Butler; Hans Henrik Thodberg; Gerhard Binder; Michael B Ranke Journal: Horm Res Paediatr Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Monika Prokop-Piotrkowska; Kamila Marszałek-Dziuba; Elżbieta Moszczyńska; Mieczysław Szalecki; Elżbieta Jurkiewicz Journal: J Clin Res Pediatr Endocrinol Date: 2020-10-26
Authors: James Houston; Amy Chiang; Shahnawaz Haleem; Jason Bernard; Timothy Bishop; Darren F Lui Journal: J Child Orthop Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 1.548