Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Accurate subxiphoid chest circumference assessment is required for the clinical evaluation and treatment planning of children with microtia. Conventional tape measurement requires an in-person visit and is prone to measurement-site error when performed by untrained caregivers. We developed a non-contact AI approach that employs a YOLO11-pose model to detect bilateral chest keypoints and a Ramanujan ellipse model to estimate subxiphoid chest circumference from a single frontal photograph, with the lateral view used solely for verification of chest depth. A single-center observational diagnostic-accuracy study of 500 children with microtia (250 boys, 250 girls) was conducted. Reference subxiphoid chest circumference was measured by trained personnel; AI prediction used YOLO11-pose keypoint detection with Ramanujan ellipse geometric modeling (chest depth = width × 0.75). The cohort was split into a development set (400 cases) and a locked test set (100 cases). Performance was assessed by mean absolute error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), Pearson correlation, and Bland–Altman agreement, with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals. In the locked test set (n = 100), MAE was 0.938 cm (95% CI 0.799–1.089), RMSE was 1.193 cm (95% CI 1.029–1.364), median absolute error was 0.80 cm, and mean bias was − 0.127 cm (95% CI − 0.359 to 0.108). Predictions were within 2, 3, and 5 cm of the reference in 93.0%, 99.0%, and 100% of cases. Pearson correlation was 0.935 (R 2 = 0.856). MAE was 0.897 cm in the normal-weight subgroup and 1.025 cm in the overweight/obesity subgroup. At a 60-cm threshold, sensitivity was 87.3%, specificity was 100.0%, and overall accuracy was 90.0%. A YOLO11-pose and Ramanujan ellipse pipeline can achieve high accuracy for non-contact subxiphoid chest circumference estimation in children with microtia under standardized imaging conditions, and mitigates measurement-site error by non-medical users through automated landmark detection. Because all images were acquired under controlled conditions, the reported performance may not directly reflect real-world in-home use. Performance was slightly lower in the overweight/obesity subgroup, warranting further validation in larger cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: