The effect of reference sample composition and size on dental age interval estimates

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesValidation studies in juvenile dental age estimation primarily focus on point estimates while interval performance for reference samples of different ancestry group compositions has received minimal attention. We tested the effect of reference sample size and composition by sex and ancestry group on age interval estimates.Materials and MethodsThe dataset consisted of Moorrees et al. dental scores from panoramic radiographs of 3334 London children of Bangladeshi and European ancestry and 2–23 years of age. Model stability was assessed using standard error of mean age‐at‐transition for univariate cumulative probit and sample size, group mixing (sex or ancestry), and staging system as factors. Age estimation performance was tested using molar reference samples of four sizes, stratified by year of age, sex, and ancestry. Age estimates were performed using Bayesian multivariate cumulative probit with 5‐fold cross‐validation.ResultsStandard error increased with decreasing sample size but showed no effect from mixing by sex or ancestry. Estimating ages using a reference and target sample of different sex reduced success rate significantly. The same test by ancestry groups had a lesser effect. Small sample size (n < 20/year of age) negatively affected most performance metrics.DiscussionWe found that reference sample size, followed by sex, primarily drove age estimation performance. Combining reference samples by ancestry produced equivalent or better estimates of age by all metrics than using a single‐demographic reference of smaller size. We further proposed that population specificity is an alternative hypothesis of intergroup difference that has been erroneously treated as a null.