RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Bone age (BA) assessment performed by artificial intelligence (AI) is of growing interest due to improved accuracy, precision and time efficiency in daily routine. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy and efficiency of a novel AI software version for automated BA assessment in comparison to the Greulich-Pyle method. METHODS: Radiographs of 514 patients were analysed in this retrospective study. Total BA was assessed independently by three blinded radiologists applying the GP method and by the AI software. Overall and gender-specific BA assessment results, as well as reading times of both approaches, were compared, while the reference BA was defined by two blinded experienced paediatric radiologists in consensus by application of the Greulich-Pyle method. RESULTS: Mean absolute deviation (MAD) and root mean square deviation (RSMD) were significantly lower between AI-derived BA and reference BA (MAD 0.34 years, RSMD 0.38 years) than between reader-calculated BA and reference BA (MAD 0.79 years, RSMD 0.89 years; p < 0.001). The correlation between AI-derived BA and reference BA (r = 0.99) was significantly higher than between reader-calculated BA and reference BA (r = 0.90; p < 0.001). No statistical difference was found in reader agreement and correlation analyses regarding gender (p = 0.241). Mean reading times were reduced by 87% using the AI system. CONCLUSIONS: A novel AI software enabled highly accurate automated BA assessment. It may improve efficiency in clinical routine by reducing reading times without compromising the accuracy compared with the Greulich-Pyle method.
Asunto(s)
Determinación de la Edad por el Esqueleto/métodos , Inteligencia Artificial , Mano/diagnóstico por imagen , Radiografía , Muñeca/diagnóstico por imagen , Adolescente , Niño , Preescolar , Alemania , Humanos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate a novel version of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system developed for automated bone age (BA) assessment in comparison to the Greulich and Pyle method, regarding its accuracy and the influence of carpal bones on BA assessment. METHODS: Total BA, BA of the left distal radius, and BA of carpal bones in 305 patients were determined independently by 3 blinded radiologists and assessed by the CAD system. Pearson product-moment correlation, Bland-Altman plot, root-mean-square deviation, and further agreement analyses were computed. RESULTS: Mean total BA and BA of the distal radius showed high correlation between both approaches (r = 0.985 and r = 0.963). There was significantly higher correlation between values of total BA and BA of the distal radius (r = 0.969) compared with values of total BA and BA of carpal bones (r = 0.923). The assessment of carpal bones showed significantly lower interreader agreement compared with measurements of the distal radius (κ = 0.79 vs κ = 0.98). CONCLUSION: A novel version of a CAD system enables highly accurate automated BA assessment. The assessment of carpal bones revealed lower precision and interreader agreement. Therefore, methods determining BA without analyzing carpal bones may be more precise and accurate.