Author:
Gao Chengcheng,Hu Chunfeng,Qian Qi,Li Yangsheng,Xing Xiaowei,Gong Ping,Lin Min,Ding Zhongxiang
Abstract
Abstract
Backgroud
Our study aimed to assess the impact of inter- and intra-observer variations when utilizing an artificial intelligence (AI) system for bone age assessment (BAA) of preschool children.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted involving a total sample of 53 female individuals and 41 male individuals aged 3–6 years in China. Radiographs were assessed by four mid-level radiology reviewers using the TW3 and RUS–CHN methods. Bone age (BA) was analyzed in two separate situations, with/without the assistance of AI. Following a 4-week wash-out period, radiographs were reevaluated in the same manner. Accuracy metrics, the correlation coefficient (ICC)and Bland-Altman plots were employed.
Results
The accuracy of BAA by the reviewers was significantly improved with AI. The results of RMSE and MAE decreased in both methods (p < 0.001). When comparing inter-observer agreement in both methods and intra-observer reproducibility in two interpretations, the ICC results were improved with AI. The ICC values increased in both two interpretations for both methods and exceeded 0.99 with AI.
Conclusion
In the assessment of BA for preschool children, AI was found to be capable of reducing inter-observer variability and enhancing intra-observer reproducibility, which can be considered an important tool for clinical work by radiologists.
Impact
The RUS-CHN method is a special bone age method devised to be suitable for Chinese children.
The preschool stage is a critical phase for children, marked by a high degree of variability that renders BA prediction challenging.
The accuracy of BAA by the reviewers can be significantly improved with the aid of an AI model system.
This study is the first to assess the impact of inter- and intra-observer variations when utilizing an AI model system for BAA of preschool children using both the TW3 and RUS-CHN methods.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Creo, A. L. & Schwenk, W. F. 2nd Bone Age: A Handy Tool for Pediatric Providers. Pediatrics 140, e20171486 (2017).
2. Halabi, S. S. et al. The Rsna Pediatric Bone Age Machine Learning Challenge. Radiology 290, 498–503 (2019).
3. Alshamrani, K. & Offiah, A. C. Applicability of Two Commonly Used Bone Age Assessment Methods to Twenty-First Century Uk Children. Eur. Radio. 30, 504–513 (2020).
4. Tanner, J. M., Healy, M. J., Goldstein, H. & Cameron, N. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height: TW3 method, 3rd ed. (W.B. Saunders, 2001).
5. Zhang, S. Y. et al. Reference Values of Differences between Tw3-C Rus and Tw3-C Carpal Bone Ages of Children from Five Cities of China. Zhonghua er ke za zhi Chin. J. Pediatrics 46, 851–855 (2008).