Are the new automated methods for bone age estimation advantageous over the manual approaches

Abstract Bone Age Assessment (BAA) is performed worldwide for the evaluation of endocrine, genetic and chronic diseases, to monitor response to medical therapy and to determine the growth potential of children and adolescents. It is also used for consultation in planning orthopedic procedures, for determination of chronological age for adopted children, youth sports participation and in forensic settings. The main clinical methods for skeletal bone age estimation are the Greulich and Pyle (GP) and the Tanner and Whitehouse (TW) methods. Seventy six per cent (76%) of radiologists or pediatricians usually use the method of GP, 20% that of TW and 4% other methods. The advantages of using the TW method, as opposed to the GP method, are that it overcomes the subjectivity problem and results are more reproducible. However, it is complex and time consuming; for this reason its usage is just about 20% on a world-wide scale. Moreover, there are some evidences that bone age assignments by different physicians can differ significantly. Computerized and Quantitative Ultrasound Technologies (QUS) for assessing skeletal maturity have been developed with the aim of reducing many of the inconsistencies associated with radiographic investigations. In spite of the fact that the volume of automated methods for BAA has increased, the majotity of them are still in an early phase of development. QUS is comparable to the GP based method, but there is not enough established data yet for the healthy population. The Authors wish to stimulate the attention on the accuracy, reliability and consistency of BAA and to initiate a debate on manual versus automated approaches to enhance our assessment for skeletal matutation in children and adolescents.