Purpose: Bone age (BA) is needed to assess developmental status and growth disorders. We evaluated the clinical performance of a deep-learning-based BA software to estimate the chronological age (CA) of healthy Korean children. Methods: This retrospective study included 371 healthy children (217 boys, 154 girls), aged between 4 and 17 years, who visited the Department of Pediatrics for health check-ups between January 2017 and December 2018. A total of 553 left-hand radiographs from 371 healthy Korean children were evaluated using a commercial deep-learning-based BA software (BoneAge, Vuno, Seoul, Korea). The clinical performance of the deep learning (DL) software was determined using the concordance rate and Bland-Altman analysis via comparison with the CA. Results: A 2-sample t-test (P<0.001) and Fisher exact test (P=0.011) showed a significant difference between the normal CA and the BA estimated by the DL software. There was good correlation between the 2 variables (r=0.96, P<0.001); however, the root mean square error was 15.4 months. With a 12-month cutoff, the concordance rate was 58.8%. The Bland-Altman plot showed that the DL software tended to underestimate the BA compared with the CA, especially in children under the age of 8.3 years. Conclusion The DL-based BA software showed a low concordance rate and a tendency to underestimate the BA in healthy Korean children.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the image quality of chest radiographs obtained using a camera-type portable X-ray device is appropriate for clinical practice by comparing them with traditional mobile digital X-ray devices. Materials and Methods: Eighty-six patients who visited our emergency department and underwent endotracheal intubation, central venous catheterization, or nasogastric tube insertion were included in the study. Two radiologists scored images captured with traditional mobile devices before insertion and those captured with camera-type devices after insertion. Identification of the inserted instruments was evaluated on a 5-point scale, and the overall image quality was evaluated on a total of 20 points scale. Results: The identification score of the instruments was 4.67 ± 0.71. The overall image quality score was 19.70 ± 0.72 and 15.02 ± 3.31 (p < 0.001) for the mobile and camera-type devices, respectively. The scores of the camera-type device were significantly lower than those of the mobile device in terms of the detailed items of respiratory motion artifacts, trachea and bronchus, pulmonary vessels, posterior cardiac blood vessels, thoracic intervertebral disc space, subdiaphragmatic vessels, and diaphragm (p= 0.013 for the item of diaphragm, p< 0.001 for the other detailed items). Conclusion Although caution is required for general diagnostic purposes as image quality degrades, a camera-type device can be used to evaluate the inserted instruments in chest radiographs.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the image quality of chest radiographs obtained using a camera-type portable X-ray device is appropriate for clinical practice by comparing them with traditional mobile digital X-ray devices. Materials and Methods: Eighty-six patients who visited our emergency department and underwent endotracheal intubation, central venous catheterization, or nasogastric tube insertion were included in the study. Two radiologists scored images captured with traditional mobile devices before insertion and those captured with camera-type devices after insertion. Identification of the inserted instruments was evaluated on a 5-point scale, and the overall image quality was evaluated on a total of 20 points scale. Results: The identification score of the instruments was 4.67 ± 0.71. The overall image quality score was 19.70 ± 0.72 and 15.02 ± 3.31 (p < 0.001) for the mobile and camera-type devices, respectively. The scores of the camera-type device were significantly lower than those of the mobile device in terms of the detailed items of respiratory motion artifacts, trachea and bronchus, pulmonary vessels, posterior cardiac blood vessels, thoracic intervertebral disc space, subdiaphragmatic vessels, and diaphragm (p= 0.013 for the item of diaphragm, p< 0.001 for the other detailed items). Conclusion Although caution is required for general diagnostic purposes as image quality degrades, a camera-type device can be used to evaluate the inserted instruments in chest radiographs.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the image quality of chest radiographs obtained using a camera-type portable X-ray device is appropriate for clinical practice by comparing them with traditional mobile digital X-ray devices. Materials and Methods: Eighty-six patients who visited our emergency department and underwent endotracheal intubation, central venous catheterization, or nasogastric tube insertion were included in the study. Two radiologists scored images captured with traditional mobile devices before insertion and those captured with camera-type devices after insertion. Identification of the inserted instruments was evaluated on a 5-point scale, and the overall image quality was evaluated on a total of 20 points scale. Results: The identification score of the instruments was 4.67 ± 0.71. The overall image quality score was 19.70 ± 0.72 and 15.02 ± 3.31 (p < 0.001) for the mobile and camera-type devices, respectively. The scores of the camera-type device were significantly lower than those of the mobile device in terms of the detailed items of respiratory motion artifacts, trachea and bronchus, pulmonary vessels, posterior cardiac blood vessels, thoracic intervertebral disc space, subdiaphragmatic vessels, and diaphragm (p= 0.013 for the item of diaphragm, p< 0.001 for the other detailed items). Conclusion Although caution is required for general diagnostic purposes as image quality degrades, a camera-type device can be used to evaluate the inserted instruments in chest radiographs.