Reliability of biological maturation analyses performed by equations predicting skeletal age and peak height velocity with hand and wrist <scp>X</scp>‐ray results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand-wrist radiography is the gold standard for the assessment of skeletal age (SA) and the assignment of biological maturation (BM) status. However, its practical use in the field is questioned, prompting the development of anthropometric equations to estimate BM. However, there is no consensus on the reliability of these equations in relation to hand-wrist X-rays. OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of the BM estimated from predictive equations with the results of hand-wrist X-rays. METHODS: One-hundred forty-four young athletes (38%-males, 62%-females; 12.3 ± 1.4 years) were recruited. SA was assessed by analyzing X-rays of the hand-wrist using the Greulich-Pyle protocol. SA was predicted using the anthropometric equations of Cabral and Macêdo. By subtracting chronological age from SA, a measure of BM or biological age (BA) was computed. In addition, a BA of years from peak height velocity (PHV) was predicted using the anthropometric equations of Mirwald and Moore. RESULTS: Relative to X-ray, Cabral's equations showed high reliability in estimating BM in both sexes (p < .0001) while Macêdo's equations showed substantial reliability or males (p < .0001) only. Mirwald and Moore's equations showed weak reliability (p < .05 and p = .043, respectively). CONCLUSION: The prediction of SA using anthropometric equations was found to be reliable in categorizing individuals as late, synchronized, and/or early maturers in both sexes. However, the predictive equations of years from PHV only reliably categorized late and synchronized maturation stages in males and the synchronized maturers in females.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".