Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Three observers rated 57 X-rays from normal healthy children in Project HeartBeat! twice each by CASAS, the computer-assisted version of the TW2 RUS bone age method. Differences between duplicates of individual bone ratings which reached or exceeded 1.0 unit (or 1 stage) were 5% within observer and 8% between observers for CASAS, and 17 and 33%, respectively, for the unassisted MANUAL method. In children followed longitudinally, CASAS scores increased much more steadily than MANUAL scores, largely because the bones were rated, in the former system, on a continuous rather than a discrete-integer scale. We conclude that CASAS is a more reliable and probably a more valid estimator of skeletal maturity than the MANUAL version of the TW2 RUS method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tanner et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: