ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Automated bone age assessment in rare pediatric growth disorders: a comparative study using Deeplasia.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- External Validation of Deeplasia for Automated Bone Age Assessment Compared with Four Commercial AI Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Bone age (BA) assessment is essential for monitoring growth and maturation and guiding therapeutic interventions. While deep learning (DL) models offer high-speed automated BA prediction, their generalizability to rare pathological and diagnostically complex populations remains a significant concern. This study aims to validate the open-source DL system Deeplasia on external data from pediatric patients with various syndromic, endocrine, and lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) and to compare its accuracy and consistency against multiple expert human raters. Methods: We retrospectively assembled 1,138 hand radiographs from multiple centers, including patients with SHOX deficiency; Noonan syndrome; Silver-Russell syndrome; Ullrich-Turner syndrome; pseudohypoparathyroidism; congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH); precocious puberty and precocious pseudopuberty (cohort 1); mucopolysaccharidosis types I, II, III, IV, and VI; alpha-mannosidosis; and unclassified LSDs (cohort 2). For each radiograph, BA was evaluated using the Greulich and Pyle method by two to five human experts to obtain a mean BA reference. Model performance was assessed using the mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), and 1-year accuracy for each cohort and underlying conditions, sex, and age groups. Furthermore, Deeplasia's performance was compared with that of individual raters by testing each rater and the model against the remaining experts. Results: Deeplasia achieved a mean MAE of 5.95 months, an RMSE of 8.01 months, and a 1-year accuracy of 89.9% for cohort 1 (endocrine and syndromic conditions). For cohort 2 (lysosomal storage disorders), Deeplasia achieved a mean MAE of 7.13 months, an RMSE of 9.56 months, and a 1-year accuracy of 81.2%. In direct comparisons between Deeplasia and individual raters tested against the remaining experts, Deeplasia outperformed all human raters. Conclusion: Deeplasia was validated as a highly consistent, robust, and reliable tool for BA assessment in complex cases. It demonstrated superior accuracy compared with individual human raters and may assist clinicians in BA evaluation.
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.