MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297241911 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000002269

A Comparison of 2 Abbreviated Methods for Assessing Adolescent Bone Age: The Shorthand Bone Age Method and the SickKids/Columbia Method

2022· article· en· W4297241911 on OpenAlexaff
Elise C. Bixby, Kira Skaggs, Emma Berube, Tony T. Wong, Lauren H. Redler, Charles A. Popkin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone ageInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radiographic assessment of bone age is critically important to decision-making on the type and timing of operative interventions in pediatric orthopaedics. The current widely accepted method for determining bone age is time and resource-intensive. This study sought to assess the reliability and accuracy of 2 abbreviated methods, the Shorthand Bone Age (SBA) and the SickKids/Columbia (SKC) methods, to the widely accepted Greulich and Pyle (GP) method. METHODS: Standard posteroanterior radiographs of the left hand of 125 adolescent males and 125 adolescent females were compiled, with bone ages determined by the GP method ranging from 9 to 16 years for males and 8 to 14 years for females. Blinded to the chronologic age and GP bone age of each child, the bone age for each radiograph was determined using the SBA and SKC methods by an orthopaedic surgery resident, 2 pediatric orthopaedic surgeons, and a musculoskeletal radiologist. Measurements were then repeated 2 weeks later after rerandomization of the radiographs. Intrarater and interrater reliability for the 2 abbreviated methods as well as the agreement between all 3 methods were calculated using weighted κ values. Mean absolute differences between methods were also calculated. RESULTS: Both bone age methods demonstrated substantial to almost perfect intrarater reliability, with a weighted κ ranging from 0.79 to 0.93 for the SBA method and from 0.82 to 0.96 for the SKC method. Interrater reliability was moderate to substantial (weighted κ: 0.55 to 0.84) for the SBA method and substantial to almost perfect (weighted κ: 0.67 to 0.92) for the SKC method. Agreement between the 3 methods was substantial for all raters and all comparisons. The mean absolute difference, been GP-derived and SBA-derived bone age, was 7.6±7.8 months, as compared with 8.8±7.4 months between GP-derived and SKC-derived bone ages. CONCLUSIONS: The SBA and SKC methods have comparable reliability, and both correlate well to the widely accepted GP methods and to each other. However, they have relatively large absolute differences when compared with the GP method. These methods offer simple, efficient, and affordable estimates for bone age determination, but at best provide an estimate to be used in the appropriate setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study-level III.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207