A comparison of bone age assessments using automated and manual methods in children of Indian ethnicity.

Abstract

Bone age is useful for pediatric endocrinologists in evaluating various disorders related to growth and puberty. Traditional methods of bone age assessment, namely Greulich and Pyle (GP) and Tanner-Whitehouse (TW), have intra- and interobserver variations. Use of computer-automated methods like BoneXpert might overcome these subjective variations. The aim of our study was to assess the validity of BoneXpert in comparison to manual GP and TW methods for assessing bone age in children of Asian Indian ethnicity. We extracted from a previous study the deidentified left hand radiographs of 920 healthy children aged 2-19 years. We compared bone age as determined by four well-trained manual raters using GP and TW methods with the BoneXpert ratings. We computed accuracy using root mean square error (RMSE) to assess how close the bone age estimated by BoneXpert was to the reference rating. The standard deviations (SDs) of rating among the four manual raters were 0.52 years, 0.52 years and 0.47 years for GP, TW2 and TW3 methods, respectively. The RMSEs between the automated bone age estimates and the true ratings were 0.39 years, 0.41 years and 0.36 years, respectively, for the same methods. The RMSE values were significantly lower in girls than in boys (0.53, 0.5 and 0.47 vs. 0.39, 0.47 and 0.4) by all the methods; however, no such difference was noted in classification by body mass index. The best agreement between BoneXpert and manual rating was obtained by using 50% weight on carpals (GP50). The carpal bone age was retarded in Indian children, more so in boys. BoneXpert was accurate and performed well in estimating bone age by both GP and TW methods in healthy Asian Indian children; the error was larger in boys. The GP50 establishes "backward compatibility" with manual rating.