ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparison of adult height prediction using bone age and body composition for growth assessment in Korean children.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of reference ranges and stability assessment for target height completion rate based on the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Automated Bone Age Assessment and Adult Height Prediction from Pediatric Hand Radiographs via a Cascaded Deep Learning Framework.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Growth Prediction in Orthodontics: ASystematic Review of Past Methods up to Artificial Intelligence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for pediatric height prediction using large-scale longitudinal body composition data.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare adult height (AH) predictions using body composition-based biological age with those derived from bone age in Korean children. A multicenter, assessor-blinded, prospective study was conducted with 80 healthy children aged 7-13 years. Participants were assessed using two methods: the traditional Tanner-Whitehouse 3 (TW3) bone age method and a model based on artificial intelligence (AI), incorporating body composition metrics such as BMI, fat-free mass, and muscle mass through bioelectrical impedance analysis. The clinical equivalence between the two prediction methods was evaluated, with a non-inferiority margin of 0.661 years. The difference in predicted bone age between the AI-based method and the TW3 method was 0.04 ± 1.02 years, indicating clinical equivalence. Exploratory analysis showed a positive correlation between lean mass and bone age, suggesting that body composition metrics could reflect skeletal maturity. Therefore, the AI-based method utilizing body composition parameters was clinically equivalent to the traditional TW3 method for predicting AH. This approach offers a viable alternative for predicting adult height in pediatric populations, emphasizing the potential for integrating personalized metrics such as body composition into routine growth monitoring; however, further research is needed before it can be widely applied in clinical practice. Future studies should explore its utility in children with growth disorders and refine the model across different growth phases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.