ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2026
AI-based bone age assessment versus forensic expert panel: agreement, sex bias, and ethical implications.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundForensic age estimation is frequently requested when chronological age is unknown or contested. While automated bone age systems have been validated in clinical populations, their performance against committee-based forensic reference standards-and their compatibility with the AGFAD-compliant Mindestalter (minimum chronological age) framework-has not been systematically addressed in cases of unknown chronological age.
methodsIn this retrospective single-centre study, we investigated the technical agreement between BoneXpert and an institutional Forensic Expert Panel (FEP) -the legally recognised reference standard in Turkish forensic practice-rather than validating BoneXpert as a stand-alone forensic tool. Hand-wrist radiographs of 128 cases (44 males, 84 females; 2016-2024) were reassessed using the Greulich-Pyle atlas (FEP) and BoneXpert. Agreement and bias were analysed using pairedt-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots. In addition, a complementary minimum-age threshold analysis was performed within the Mindestalter framework using the minimum chronological ages reported by Tisè et al.
resultsExcellent agreement was observed (overall ICC = 0.956; males 0.987; females 0.907). A small but significant bias (-0.24 years) indicated underestimation by BoneXpert, driven by female cases (-0.34 years; no significant bias in males). Under the Mindestalter framework, BoneXpert never classified a case as proven above a legal threshold when the FEP did not. Concordance was 93.8% (κ = 0.834) at the 14-year threshold and 80.5% (κ = 0.604) at the 15-year threshold. At the 18-year threshold, neither method could prove that the threshold had been reached using hand-wrist GP-based assessment alone.
conclusionBoneXpert provides consistent and ethically conservative results but should be used only as a decision-support tool within a multidisciplinary expert-led workflow, in line with AGFAD recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42412185What 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.