Forensic age estimation based on T1 SE and VIBE wrist MRI: do a one-fits-all staging technique and age estimation model apply?
Providing recommendations for wrist MRI in age estimation by determining (1) which anatomical structures to include in the statistical model, (2) which MRI sequence to conduct, and (3) which staging technique to apply.
Radius and ulna were prospectively studied on 3 T MRI in 363 healthy Caucasian participants (185 females, 178 males) between 14 and 26 years old, using T1 spin echo (SE) and T1 gradient echo VIBE. Bone development was assessed applying a 5-stage staging technique with several amelioration attempts to optimise staging. A Bayesian model rendered point predictions of age and diagnostic indices to discern minors from adults.
All approaches rendered similar results, with none of them outperforming the others. A single bone assessment of radius or ulna sufficed. SE and VIBE sequences were both suitable, but needed sequence-specific age estimation. A one-fits-all 5-stage staging technique—with substages in stage 3—was suitable and did not benefit from profound substaging. Age estimation based on SE radius resulted in a mean absolute error of 1.79 years, a specificity (correctly identified minors) of 93%, and a discrimination slope of 0.640.
Radius and ulna perform similarly to estimate age, and so do SE and VIBE. A one-fits-all staging technique can be applied.
• Radius and ulna perform similarly to estimate age.
• SE and VIBE perform similarly, but age estimation should be based on the corresponding sequence-specific reference data.
• A one-fits-all 5-stage staging technique with substages 3a, 3b, and 3c can be applied to both bones and both sequences.
KeywordsAge determination by skeleton Wrist Adolescent Adult Magnetic resonance imaging
Mean absolute error
Specific absorption rate
T1-weighted spin echo MR-sequence
Threefold stratification sign
T1-weighted gradient echo volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination MR-sequence
The authors wish to express their gratitude to all participants and everyone who helped with the recruitment. We thank Maarten Peleman and Dries Ovaere for installing the viewing software on the department’s computers. Finally, we wish to acknowledge Inès Phlypo for her indispensable critical appraisal of the manuscript.
Results described in this manuscript were presented at the 20th Meeting of the Study Group on Forensic Age Diagnostics (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forensische Altersdiagnostik, AGFAD) in Berlin, Germany, on March 17, 2017.
Funding for this research was entirely provided by the Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Ghent University and the Department of Imaging and Pathology - Forensic Odontology at KU Leuven.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Koenraad Verstraete, Ghent University.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. In case of minors, written informed consent was also obtained from the parents.
The study was approved by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
• cross sectional study/observational
• performed at one institution
- 4.Ottow C, Schulz R, Pfeiffer H, Heindel W, Schmeling A, Vieth V (2017) Forensic age estimation by magnetic resonance imaging of the knee: the definite relevance in bony fusion of the distal femoral- and the proximal tibial epiphyses using closest-to-bone T1 TSE sequence. Eur Radiol 27:5041–5048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Thevissen PW (2013) Dental age estimation in sub-adults: striving for an optimal approach. Leuven University Press, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hojreh A, Gamper J, Schmook MT et al (2018) Hand MRI and the Greulich-Pyle atlas in skeletal age estimation in adolescents. Skelet Radiol 47:963–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-017-2867-3
- 29.Boldsen JL, Milner GR, Konigsberg LW, Wood JW (2002) Transition analysis: a new method for estimating age from skeletons. In: Hoppa RD, Vaupel JW (eds) Paleodemography: Age distributions from skeletal samples. (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.De Tobel J, Parmentier GIL, Phlypo I et al (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging of third molars in forensic age estimation: comparison of the Ghent and Graz protocols focusing on apical closure. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1905-6
- 37.Vieth V, Schulz R, Heindel W et al (2018) Forensic age assessment by 3.0T MRI of the knee: proposal of a new MRI classification of ossification stages. Eur Radiol 28:3255–3262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5281-2
- 45.Bleka Ø, Wisloff T, Dahlberg PS, Rolseth V, Egeland T (2018) Advancing estimation of chronological age by utilizing available evidence based on two radiographical methods. Int J Legal Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-018-1848-y
- 46.International Organization for Forensic Odonto-Stomatology (IOFOS) (2018) Recommendations for quality assurance. Dental Age Estimation, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
- 47.Greulich W, Pyle SI (1959) Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist, 2nd edn. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar