Cited by 13Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationChild Abuse and Related Trauma

Chronological Age Assessment in Young Individuals Using Bone Age Assessment Staging and Nonradiological Aspects: Machine Learning Multifactorial Approach

Open access
Dallora, Ana Luiza, Kvist, Ola, Berglund, Johan Sanmartin, Ruiz, Sandra Diaz, Boldt, Martin, Flodmark, Carl-Erik, Anderberg, Peter·2020·JMIR Medical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: Bone age assessment (BAA) is used in numerous pediatric clinical settings as well as in legal settings when entities need an estimate of chronological age (CA) when valid documents are lacking. The latter case presents itself as critical as the law is harsher for adults and granted rights along with imputability changes drastically if the individual is a minor. Traditional BAA methods have drawbacks such as exposure of minors to radiation, they do not consider factors that might affect the bone age, and they mostly focus on a single region. Given the critical scenarios in which BAA can affect the lives of young individuals, it is important to focus on the drawbacks of the traditional methods and investigate the potential of estimating CA through BAA. Objective: This study aims to investigate CA estimation through BAA in young individuals aged 14-21 years with machine learning methods, addressing the drawbacks of research using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), assessment of multiple regions of interest, and other factors that may affect the bone age. Methods: MRI examinations of the radius, distal tibia, proximal tibia, distal femur, and calcaneus were performed on 465 men and 473 women (aged 14-21 years). Measures of weight and height were taken from the subjects, and a questionnaire was given for additional information (self-assessed Tanner Scale, physical activity level, parents' origin, and type of residence during upbringing). Two pediatric radiologists independently assessed the MRI images to evaluate their stage of bone development (blinded to age, gender, and each other). All the gathered information was used in training machine learning models for CA estimation and minor versus adult classification (threshold of 18 years). Different machine learning methods were investigated. Results: The minor versus adult classification produced accuracies of 0.90 and 0.84 for male and female subjects, respectively, with high recalls for the classification of minors. The CA estimation for the 8 age groups (aged 14-21 years) achieved mean absolute errors of 0.95 years and 1.24 years for male and female subjects, respectively. However, for the latter, a lower error occurred only for the ages of 14 and 15 years. Conclusions: This study investigates CA estimation through BAA using machine learning methods in 2 ways: minor versus adult classification and CA estimation in 8 age groups (aged 14-21 years), while addressing the drawbacks in the research on BAA. The first achieved good results; however, for the second case, the BAA was not precise enough for the classification.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/18846

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Gilsanz V Ratib O - 2005 Hand Bone Age A Digital Atlas Of Skeletal Maturity. Springer Science & Business Media A
  2. [28]Tanner J Whitehouse R Cameron N Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW3 Method). 3rd edn 2001 WB Saunders London
  3. [43]Wainer J Cawley G Nested cross-validation when selecting classifiers is overzealous for most practical applications. arXiv cs LG 2018 Available -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dallora, A. L., Kvist, O., Berglund, J. S., Ruiz, S. D., Boldt, M., Flodmark, C.-E., & Anderberg, P.
Affiliations
  • Blekinge Institute of Technology (SE)
  • Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
  • Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
Anderberg, Peter
Venue
JMIR Medical Informatics
Published
2020-09-21
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
e18846
ISSN
2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3087276057
Cited by
13
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
FWCI
6.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University Library of Skövde (University of Skövde) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
Keywords
chronological age estimation, bone age assessment, skeletal maturation, Tanner stages, physical activity, parental origin, forensic age estimation, sex differences in age estimation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review