作者投稿
专家审稿
编辑办公
邮件订阅
RSS
Comparison of Three Methods of Assessing the Bone Age in Tibetan Children and the Features of Their Skeletal Maturity
-
摘要:
目的 探讨更适用于藏族儿童的骨龄测定方法，并进一步总结藏族儿童的骨龄发育规律。 方法 回顾性收集2013年9月至2019年11月因外伤就诊于西藏自治区人民医院的4~18岁藏族儿童临床资料。研究对象均拍摄左手腕部X线片作为骨龄片。北京协和医院2名医生依据Greulich-Pyle(GP)图谱法共同阅片，得出GP图谱法骨龄。由人工智能骨龄系统自动阅片完成Tanner-Whitehouse3(TW3)法(包括TW3-RUS法和TW3-Carpal法)和中国人手腕骨发育标准-中华05.Ⅳ. (中华05)法骨龄测定。采用Pearson相关法分析GP图谱、TW3法、中华05法测定的骨龄与日历年龄的相关性。 结果 共305例符合纳入和排除标准的藏族儿童入选本研究。其中男童209例，女童96例；平均日历年龄(11.22±4.81)岁。Pearson相关法分析显示，GP图谱法、TW3-RUS法、TW3-Carpal法及中华05法测定的骨龄与藏族儿童日历年龄均高度相关，其中以GP图谱法的相关性最强(r=0.961)，其次为TW3-RUS法(r=0.941)、中华05法(r=0.937)、TW3-Carpal法(r=0.895)。藏族儿童普遍存在发育延缓；4~10岁儿童的骨龄不同程度地小于日历年龄；青春发育期(11~15岁)儿童的骨龄超过日历年龄(13岁男童除外)，呈追赶趋势，但16~18岁时的骨龄仍小于日历年龄。 结论 与TW3法、中华05法相比，GP图谱法更适用于藏族儿童的骨龄评估；藏族儿童的骨龄发育呈青春发育期追赶的趋势，但整体仍落后于日历年龄。 Abstract:Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate which of the three methods of assessing the bone age (BA), Greulich-Pyle (GP) atlas, Tanner-Whitehouse3 (TW3) and Chinese Hand Wrist Standard TW-China05, is most appropriate for Tibetan children, and to further investigate the BA characteristics of modern Tibetan children. Methods Radiographs of the left hand of Tibetan children aged 4 to 18 years who presented with trauma to Tibet Autonomous Region People's Hospital between September 2013 and November 2019 were retrospectively collected. BAs of these radiographs were analyzed by two experienced reviewers based on the GP atlas who came from Peking Union Medical College Hospital. A previously reported artificial-intelligence (AI) BA system was used for the TW3(including TW3-RUS and TW3-Carpal) and TW-China05 method. The Pearson correlation method was used to analyze the correlation between calendar age and BA determined by GP atlas, TW3 and TW-China05 methods. Results There were 305 Tibetan children (209 boys and 96 girls) with a mean calendar age of 11.22±4.81 years included in this study. Pearson correlation analysis showed that the BAs measured by the GP atlas, TW3-RUS, TW3-Carpal and TW-China05 methods are highly correlated with the calendar ages of Tibetan children, and the GP atlas has the strongest correlation (r=0.961), followed by TW3-RUS method (r=0.941), TW-China05 method (r=0.937), and TW3-Carpal method(r=0.895). From 4- to 10-year-old, the BAs of all Tibetan boys and girls were smaller than their calendar age with a difference degrees; subsequently, BAs showed a tendency of catch-up during puberty, but still lagging behind calendar ages from 16- to 18-years old. Conclusions Compared with the TW3 and TW-China05 methods, GP atlas may be the most accurate method of BA assessment for Tibetan children. BAs of modern Tibetan children shows catch-up trend during adolescence, but still lag behind calendar ages by the age of 18. -
Key words:
- bone age /
- Tibetan children /
- growth and development /
- artificial intelligence
编者按:援藏援疆是国家战略，是推动边疆发展稳定、促进各民族大团结的重大举措。为推动西藏自治区、新疆维吾尔自治区医疗卫生事业的发展，“十三五”期间，国家卫生健康委员会大力推进以医疗人才“组团式”援藏援疆为主要代表的卫生健康对口帮扶工作，将先进的诊疗技术和优秀的管理理念进行深入移植，全面提升了当地的医疗卫生服务水平。一直以来，医疗人才“组团式”援藏援疆工作稳步推进，精准施策，在提升当地医疗服务水平的同时，也开展了相对开创性的医学研究，积累了诸多宝贵经验。为此，我刊特别开设“援藏援疆专栏”，记录和发布援藏援疆系列宝贵经验和研究成果，以期为推动援藏援疆事业发展作出更大贡献。编者按:作者贡献：王凤丹、潘慧、银武、金征宇提出研究设计思路；次旦旺久、拉巴顿珠、王凤丹、顾潇、陈适、刘永亮、石磊进行数据整理和分析；次旦旺久、王凤丹完成文章初稿；所有作者均参与论文修改。编者按:利益冲突 无 -
表 1 不同方法测定的骨龄结果与日历年龄的相关性分析
评估方法 骨龄(x±s，岁) r值 总体(n=305) GP图谱法 10.64±5.18 0.961 TW3-RUS法 10.26±4.90 0.941 TW3-Carpal法 9.12±3.53 0.895 中华05法 10.46±4.41 0.937 男童(n=209) GP图谱法 11.00±5.26 0.958 TW3-RUS法 10.70±4.94 0.942 TW3-Carpal法 9.62±3.66 0.909 中华05法 10.88±4.43 0.938 女童(n=96) GP图谱法 9.85±4.95 0.968 TW3-RUS法 9.28±4.68 0.937 TW3-Carpal法 8.05±2.99 0.879 中华05法 9.53±4.23 0.935 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 不同年龄段藏族儿童GP图谱法骨龄与日历年龄的差值分布(x±s，岁)
CA
(岁)男童(n=209) 女童(n=96) 例数(n) CA BA BA-CA P值 例数(n) CA BA BA-CA P值 4 20 4.10±0.23 3.64±0.51 -0.96±1.19 0.002 12 4.05±0.08 3.46±0.73 -0.59±0.76 0.021 5 12 5.09±0.22 4.18±0.69 -1.71±1.32 0.001 7 5.13±0.34 4.56±0.64 -0.57±0.53 0.028 6 16 6.25±0.38 4.94±0.89 -1.31±0.97 0.000 9 6.01±0.03 5.02±1.08 -0.99±1.08 0.025 7 10 7.11±0.21 5.36±1.14 -1.75±1.17 0.001 5 7.14±0.13 5.68±2.04 -1.46±2.12 0.198 8 13 8.21±0.30 7.06±1.63 -1.15±1.61 0.025 8 8.10±0.24 7.38±1.10 -0.73±1.02 0.084 9 9 9.04±1.33 8.56±1.93 -0.49±1.89 0.461 3 9.27±0.31 8.53±1.37 -0.73±1.55 0.499 10 13 10.08±0.22 9.10±1.72 -0.99±1.62 0.049 6 10.12±0.16 9.40±1.73 -0.72±1.66 0.337 11 8 11.18±0.31 11.50±1.63 0.62±2.97 0.543 4 11.10±0.20 11.33±1.97 0.23±1.94 0.831 12 12 12.14±0.25 12.54±1.97 0.40±1.95 0.492 5 12.08±0.18 10.92±1.68 -1.22±3.45 0.169 13 9 12.28±0.34 12.17±1.41 -1.11±1.42 0.047 5 13.34±0.27 13.80±0.76 0.46±0.50 0.110 14 16 14.21±0.33 14.77±2.12 0.56±1.97 0.272 4 14.30±0.35 14.70±1.33 0.40±1.11 0.524 15 12 15.23±0.32 16.06±1.48 0.83±1.44 0.086 6 15.29±0.24 15.08±1.16 0.28±2.71 0.737 16 16 16.21±0.30 16.06±0.96 -0.14±1.00 0.572 9 16.01±0.04 15.35±1.23 -0.66±1.26 0.180 17 20 17.11±0.23 16.52±1.10 -0.59±1.05 0.022 6 17.28±0.30 15.67±1.17 -1.62±1.23 0.023 18 22 18.31±0.36 17.36±1.62 -0.96±1.67 0.014 6 18.17±0.29 17.17±0.98 -1.96±2.44 0.044 CA：日历年龄; BA：骨龄
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Martin DD, Wit JM, Hochberg Z, et al. The use of bone age in clinical practice-part 1[J]. Horm Res Paediatr, 2011, 76: 1-9. http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=329372&Ausgabe=255394&ProduktNr=224036&filename=329372.pdf [2] Creo AL, Schwenk WF. Bone age: A handy tool for pediatric providers[J]. Pediatrics, 2017, 140: e20171486. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-1486 [3] Greulich WW, Pyle SI. Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of hand wrist[M]. Stanford: Stanford Universtiy Press, 1971. [4] Tanner JM, Healy MJR, Goldstein H, et al. Assessment of skeletal maturity and prediction of adult height (TW3 method)[M]. 3rd ed. London: WB Saunders, 2001. [5] 张绍岩, 马振国, 沈勋章, 等. 中国人手腕骨发育标准——中华05. IV. 中国儿童手腕骨发育特征[J]. 中国运动医学杂志, 2007, 26: 452-455. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6710.2007.04.014 Zhang SY, Ma ZG, Shen XZ, et al. The skeletal development standards of hand and wrist for Chinese Children—China 05. IV.Features of hand and wrist for Chinese children[J]. Zhongguo Yun Dong Yi Xue Za Zhi, 2007, 26: 452-455. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-6710.2007.04.014 [6] Gertych A, Zhang A, Sayre J, et al. Bone age assessment of children using a digital hand atlas[J]. Comput Med Imag Grap, 2007, 31: 322-331. doi: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2007.02.012 [7] Bianba B, Yangzong Y, Gonggalanzi G, et al. Anthropometric measures of 9- to 10-year-old native Tibetan children living at 3700 and 4300 m above sea level and Han Chinese living at 3700 m[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94: e1516. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001516 [8] Wang F, Gu X, Chen S, et al. Artificial intelligence system can achieve comparable results to experts for bone age assessment of Chinese children with abnormal growth and development[J]. Peer J, 2020, 8: e8854. doi: 10.7717/peerj.8854 [9] Van RR, Lequin MH, Robben SG, et al. Is the Greulich and Pyle atlas still valid for Dutch Caucasian children today?[J]. Pediatr Radiol, 2001, 31: 748-752. doi: 10.1007/s002470100531 [10] Bken B, Safak AA, Yazici B, et al. Is the assessment of bone age by the Greulich-Pyle method reliable at forensic age estimation for Turkish children?[J]. Forensic Sci Int, 2007, 173: 146-153. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2007.02.023 [11] Zhang A, Sayre JW, Vachon L, et al. Racial differences in growth patterns of children assessed on the basis of bone age[J]. Radiology, 2009, 250: 228-235. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2493080468 [12] Mirza WA, Memon M, Mahmood SM, et al. Bone age practices in infants and older children among practicing radiologists in Pakistan: developing world perspective[J]. Cureus, 2019, 11: e3936. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/330550531_Bone_Age_Practices_in_Infants_and_Older_Children_among_Practicing_Radiologists_in_Pakistan_Developing_World_Perspective [13] Govender D, Goodier RM. Bone of contention: the applicability of the Greulich-Pyle method for skeletal age assessment in South Africa[J]. SA J Radiol, 2018, 22: 1348-1354. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31754503 [14] Zafar AM, Nadeem N, Husen Y, et al. An appraisal of Greulich-Pyle Atlas for skeletal age assessment in Pakistan[J]. J PakMed Assoc, 2010, 60: 552-555. [15] Proos LA, Nnerholm LT, Jonsson B, et al. Can the TW3 bone age determination method provide additional criteria for growth hormone treatment in adopted girls with early puberty? A comparison of the Tanner-Whitehouse 3 method with the Greulich-Pyle and the Tanner-Whitehouse 2 methods[J]. Horm Res Paediatr, 2010, 73: 35-40. doi: 10.1159/000271914 [16] Lynnerup N, Belard E, Buch-Olsen K, et al. Intra- and interobserver error of the Greulich-Pyle method as used on a Danish forensic sample[J]. Forensic Sci Int, 2008, 179: 242. e1-6. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/18602233 [17] 李春山, 李长勇, 席焕久, 等. 拉萨藏族青少年手腕部骨龄发育评价[J]. 中国临床康复, 2005, 9: 36-38. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDKF200523021.htm Li CS, Li CY, Xi HJ, et al. Assessment of development of wrist skeletal age of Tibet adolescent in Lhasa[J]. Zhongguo Lin Chuang Kang Fu, 2005, 9: 36-38. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XDKF200523021.htm [18] 李春山, 李长勇, 任甫, 等. 那曲地区藏族青少年腕部骨龄评价[J]. 解剖学杂志, 2006, 29: 414-416. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JPXZ200604010.htm Li CS, Li CY, Ren F, et al. Assessment of Tibetan adolescents skeletal age of wrist in Naqu district[J]. Jie Pou Xue Za Zhi, 2006, 29: 414-416. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JPXZ200604010.htm [19] Dang S, Yan H, Wang D. Implication of World Health Organization growth standards on estimation of malnutrition in young Chinese children: Two examples from rural western China and the Tibet region[J]. J Child Health Care, 2014, 18: 358-368. doi: 10.1177/1367493513496669 [20] Argnani L, Cogo A, Gualdi-Russso E. Growth and nutri-tional status of Tibetan children at high altitude[J]. Coll Antropol, 2008, 32: 807-812. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18982755 [21] Tajmir SH, Lee H, Shailam R, et al. Artificial intelligence-assisted interpretation of bone age radiographs improves accuracy and decreases variability[J]. Skeletal Radiol, 2019, 48: 275-283. doi: 10.1007/s00256-018-3033-2 [22] Spampinato C, Palazzo S, Giordano D, et al. Deep learning for automated skeletal bone age assessment in X-ray images[J]. Med Image Anal, 2017, 36: 41-51. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2016.10.010 [23] Lee H, Tajmir S, Lee J, et al. Fully automated deep learning system for bone age assessment[J]. J Digit Imaging, 2017, 30: 427-441. doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-9955-8 [24] Larson DB, Chen MC, Lungren MP, et al. Performance of a deep-learning neural network model in assessing skeletal maturity on pediatric hand radiographs[J]. Radiology, 2018, 287: 313-322. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170236 [25] Zhou XL, Wang EG, Lin Q, et al. Diagnostic performance of convolutional neural network-based Tanner-Whitehouse 3 bone age assessment system[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2020, 10: 657-667. doi: 10.21037/qims.2020.02.20 -
点击查看大图
图(2) / 表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 707
- HTML全文浏览量: 347
- PDF下载量: 26
- 被引次数: 0
