scholarly journals Dental and Skeletal Imaging in Forensic Age Estimation: Disparities in Current Approaches and the Continuing Search for Optimization

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (05) ◽  
pp. 510-522
Author(s):  
Jannick De Tobel ◽  
Christian Ottow ◽  
Thomas Widek ◽  
Isabella Klasinc ◽  
Håkan Mörnstad ◽  
...  

AbstractMedical imaging for forensic age estimation in living adolescents and young adults continues to be controversial and a subject of discussion. Because age estimation based on medical imaging is well studied, it is the current gold standard. However, large disparities exist between the centers conducting age estimation, both between and within countries. This review provides an overview of the most common approaches applied in Europe, with case examples illustrating the differences in imaging modalities, in staging of development, and in statistical processing of the age data. Additionally, the review looks toward the future because several European research groups have intensified studies on age estimation, exploring four strategies for optimization: (1) increasing sample sizes of the reference populations, (2) combining single-site information into multifactorial information, (3) avoiding ionizing radiation, and (4) conducting a fully automated analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 1691-1708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jannick De Tobel ◽  
Jeroen Bauwens ◽  
Griet I. L. Parmentier ◽  
Ademir Franco ◽  
Nele S. Pauwels ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 101998
Author(s):  
R.V. Meghana ◽  
Prathima Mallempalli ◽  
Subhashini Kondakamalli ◽  
Mamatha Boringi ◽  
Rahul Marshal Vaddeswarapu ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
pp. 269-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Schmeling ◽  
Walter Reisinger ◽  
Gunther Geserick ◽  
Andreas Olze

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian S. Guay ◽  
Mariam Khebir ◽  
T. Shiva Shahiri ◽  
Ariana Szilagyi ◽  
Erin Elizabeth Cole ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Real-time automated analysis of videos of the microvasculature is an essential step in the development of research protocols and clinical algorithms that incorporate point-of-care microvascular analysis. In response to the call for validation studies of available automated analysis software by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, and building on a previous validation study in sheep, we report the first human validation study of AVA 4. Methods Two retrospective perioperative datasets of human microcirculation videos (P1 and P2) and one prospective healthy volunteer dataset (V1) were used in this validation study. Video quality was assessed using the modified Microcirculation Image Quality Selection (MIQS) score. Videos were initially analyzed with (1) AVA software 3.2 by two experienced investigators using the gold standard semi-automated method, followed by an analysis with (2) AVA automated software 4.1. Microvascular variables measured were perfused vessel density (PVD), total vessel density (TVD), and proportion of perfused vessels (PPV). Bland–Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to measure agreement between the two methods. Each method’s ability to discriminate between microcirculatory states before and after induction of general anesthesia was assessed using paired t-tests. Results Fifty-two videos from P1, 128 videos from P2 and 26 videos from V1 met inclusion criteria for analysis. Correlational analysis and Bland–Altman analysis revealed poor agreement and no correlation between AVA 4.1 and AVA 3.2. Following the induction of general anesthesia, TVD and PVD measured using AVA 3.2 increased significantly for P1 (p < 0.05) and P2 (p < 0.05). However, these changes could not be replicated with the data generated by AVA 4.1. Conclusions AVA 4.1 is not a suitable tool for research or clinical purposes at this time. Future validation studies of automated microvascular flow analysis software should aim to measure the new software’s agreement with the gold standard, its ability to discriminate between clinical states and the quality thresholds at which its performance becomes unacceptable.


2014 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 68-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Schulz ◽  
Manfred Schiborr ◽  
Heidi Pfeiffer ◽  
Sven Schmidt ◽  
Andreas Schmeling

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 2322-2329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuan Li ◽  
Zhizhong Huang ◽  
Xiaoai Dong ◽  
Weibo Liang ◽  
Hui Xue ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document