Artificial Intelligence-Based Models for Automated Bone Age Assessment from Posteroanterior Wrist X-Rays: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Introduction: Bone-age assessment using posteroanterior left hand–wrist radiographs is indispensable in pediatric endocrinology and forensic age determination. Traditional methods—Greulich–Pyle atlas and Tanner–Whitehouse scoring—are time-consuming, operator-dependent, and prone to inter- and intra-observer variability. Aim: To systematically review the performance of AI-based models for automated bone-age estimation from left PA hand–wrist radiographs. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was carried out and previously registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024619808) in MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, ELSEVIER (Scopus), EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WoS), IEEE Xplore, and ProQuest for original studies published between 2019 and 2024. Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and outcomes, assessed methodological quality via the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, and evaluated bias using ROBINS-E. Results: Seventy-seven studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing convolutional neural networks, ensemble and hybrid models, and transfer-learning approaches. Commercial systems (e.g., BoneXpert®, Physis®, VUNO Med®-BoneAge) achieved mean absolute errors of 2–31.8 months—significantly surpassing Greulich–Pyle and Tanner–Whitehouse benchmarks—and reduced reading times by up to 87%. Common limitations included demographic bias, heterogeneous imaging protocols, and scarce external validation. Conclusions: AI-based approaches have substantially advanced automated bone-age estimation, delivering clinical-grade speed and mean absolute errors below 6 months. To ensure equitable, generalizable performance, future work must prioritize demographically diverse training cohorts, implement bias-mitigation strategies, and perform local calibration against region-specific standards.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.