Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Forensic age estimation based on T1 SE and VIBE wrist MRI: do a one-fits-all staging technique and age estimation model apply?

  • Forensic Medicine
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

Radius and ulna perform similarly to estimate age, and so do SE and VIBE. A one-fits-all staging technique can be applied.

Key Points

• 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence interval

END:

End stage

MAE:

Mean absolute error

SAR:

Specific absorption rate

SE:

T1-weighted spin echo MR-sequence

TFS:

Threefold stratification sign

VIBE:

T1-weighted gradient echo volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination MR-sequence

References

  1. Schmeling A, Geserick G, Reisinger W, Olze A (2007) Age estimation. Forensic Sci Int 165:178–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Tobel J, Phlypo I, Fieuws S, Politis C, Verstraete KL, Thevissen PW (2017) Forensic age estimation based on development of third molars: a staging technique for magnetic resonance imaging. J Forensic Odontostomatol 35:117–140

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hillewig E, Degroote J, Van der Paelt T et al (2013) Magnetic resonance imaging of the sternal extremity of the clavicle in forensic age estimation: towards more sound age estimates. Int J Legal Med 127:677–689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 27:5041–5048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Štern D, Kainz P, Payer C, Urschler M (2017) Multi-factorial age estimation from skeletal and dental MRI Volumes. In: International workshop on machine learning in medical imaging. Springer, Quebec City, pp 61–69

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Timme M, Ottow C, Schulz R et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of the distal radial epiphysis: a new criterion of maturity for determining whether the age of 18 has been completed? Int J Legal Med 131:579–584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmeling A, Dettmeyer R, Rudolf E, Vieth V, Geserick G (2016) Forensic age estimation. Dtsch Arztebl Int 113:44–50

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Thevissen PW (2013) Dental age estimation in sub-adults: striving for an optimal approach. Leuven University Press, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cunha E, Baccino E, Martrille L et al (2009) The problem of aging human remains and living individuals: a review. Forensic Sci Int 193:1–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Urschler M, Grassegger S, Štern D (2015) What automated age estimation of hand and wrist MRI data tells us about skeletal maturation in male adolescents. Ann Hum Biol 42:358–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Serin J, Rérolle C, Pucheux J et al (2016) Contribution of magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist and hand to forensic age assessment. Int J Legal Med 130:1121–1128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dvorak J (2009) Detecting over-age players using wrist MRI: science partnering with sport to ensure fair play. Br J Sports Med 43:884–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dvorak J, George J, Junge A, Hodler J (2007) Age determination by magnetic resonance imaging of the wrist in adolescent male football players. Br J Sports Med 41:45–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dvorak J, George J, Junge A, Hodler J (2007) Application of MRI of the wrist for age determination in international U-17 soccer competitions. Br J Sports Med 41:497–500

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. George J, Nagendran J, Azmi K (2012) Comparison study of growth plate fusion using MRI versus plain radiographs as used in age determination for exclusion of overaged football players. Br J Sports Med 46:273–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schmidt S, Vieth V, Timme M, Dvorak J, Schmeling A (2015) Examination of ossification of the distal radial epiphysis using magnetic resonance imaging. New insights for age estimation in young footballers in FIFA tournaments. Sci Justice 55:139–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tscholl PM, Junge A, Dvorak J, Zubler V (2016) MRI of the wrist is not recommended for age determination in female football players of U-16/U-17 competitions. Scand J Med Sci Sports 26:324–328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Urschler M, Krauskopf A, Widek T et al (2016) Applicability of Greulich-Pyle and Tanner-Whitehouse grading methods to MRI when assessing hand bone age in forensic age estimation: a pilot study. Forensic Sci Int 266:281–288

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

  20. Kellinghaus M, Schulz R, Vieth V, Schmidt S, Pfeiffer H, Schmeling A (2010) Enhanced possibilities to make statements on the ossification status of the medial clavicular epiphysis using an amplified staging scheme in evaluating thin-slice CT scans. Int J Legal Med 124:321–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmeling A, Schulz R, Reisinger W, Mühler M, Wernecke KD, Geserick G (2004) Studies on the time frame for ossification of the medial clavicular epiphyseal cartilage in conventional radiography. Int J Legal Med 118:5–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wittschieber D, Schmidt S, Vieth V et al (2014) Subclassification of clavicular substage 3a is useful for diagnosing the age of 17 years. Rechtsmedizin 24:485–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ekizoglu O, Hocaoglu E, Inci E, Can IO, Aksoy S, Sayin I (2015) Estimation of forensic age using substages of ossification of the medial clavicle in living individuals. Int J Legal Med 129:1259–1264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wittschieber D, Schulz R, Vieth V et al (2014) The value of sub-stages and thin slices for the assessment of the medial clavicular epiphysis: a prospective multi-center CT study. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 10:163–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thevissen PW, Fieuws S, Willems G (2013) Third molar development: evaluation of nine tooth development registration techniques for age estimations. J Forensic Sci 58:393–397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. De Tobel J, Hillewig E, Bogaert S, Deblaere K, Verstraete K (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of third molars: developing a protocol suitable for forensic age estimation. Ann Hum Biol 44:130–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. De Tobel J, Hillewig E, Verstraete K (2017) Forensic age estimation based on magnetic resonance imaging of third molars: converting 2D staging into 3D staging. Ann Hum Biol 44:121–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hillewig E, De Tobel J, Cuche O, Vandemaele P, Piette M, Verstraete K (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging of the medial extremity of the clavicle in forensic bone age determination: a new four-minute approach. Eur Radiol 21:757–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 73–106

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Fieuws S, Willems G, Larsen-Tangmose S, Lynnerup N, Boldsen J, Thevissen P (2016) Obtaining appropriate interval estimates for age when multiple indicators are used: evaluation of an ad-hoc procedure. Int J Legal Med 130:489–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Thevissen PW, Fieuws S, Willems G (2010) Human dental age estimation using third molar developmental stages: does a Bayesian approach outperform regression models to discriminate between juveniles and adults? Int J Legal Med 124:35–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bolívar J, Sandoval Ó, Osorio J, Dib G, Gallo J (2015) Relationship of chronological age and sexual maturity with skeletal maturity by magnetic resonance imaging of the distal radial epiphysis in adolescent football players. Apunts Medicina de l'Esport 50:129–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sarkodie BD, Botwe BO, Pambo P, Brakohiapa EK, Mayeden RN (2018) MRI age verification of U-17 footballers: the Ghana study. J Forensic Radiol Imaging 12:21–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wittschieber D, Schulz R, Vieth V et al (2014) Influence of the examiner's qualification and sources of error during stage determination of the medial clavicular epiphysis by means of computed tomography. Int J Legal Med 128:183–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. McGibbon CA, Bencardino J, Palmer WE (2003) Subchondral bone and cartilage thickness from MRI: effects of chemical-shift artifact. MAGMA 16:1–9

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

  38. Abdelbary MH, Abdelkawi MM, Nasr MA (2018) Age determination by MR imaging of the wrist in Egyptian male football players. How far is it reliable? The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 49:146–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Serinelli S, Panebianco V, Martino M et al (2015) Accuracy of MRI skeletal age estimation for subjects 12-19. Potential use for subjects of unknown age. Int J Legal Med 129:609–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Terada Y, Kono S, Tamada D et al (2013) Skeletal age assessment in children using an open compact MRI system. Magn Reson Med 69:1697–1702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Terada Y, Kono S, Uchiumi T et al (2014) Improved reliability in skeletal age assessment using a pediatric hand MR scanner with a 0.3T permanent magnet. Magn Reson Med Sci 13:215–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Terada Y, Tamada D, Kose K et al (2016) Acceleration of skeletal age MR examination using compressed sensing. J Magn Reson Imaging 44:204–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Tomei E, Sartori A, Nissman D et al (2014) Value of MRI of the hand and the wrist in evaluation of bone age: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:1198–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Jaramillo D, Connolly SA, Mulkern RV, Shapiro F (1998) Developing epiphysis: MR imaging characteristics and histologic correlation in the newborn lamb. Radiology 207:637–645

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  47. Greulich W, Pyle SI (1959) Radiographic atlas of skeletal development of the hand and wrist, 2nd edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  48. Demirjian A, Goldstein H, Tanner JM (1973) A new system of dental age assessment. Hum Biol 45:211–227

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Aynsley-Green A, Cole T, Crawley H, Lessof N, Boag L, Wallace R (2012) Medical, statistical, ethical and human rights considerations in the assessment of age in children and young people subject to immigration control. Br Med Bull 102:17–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Thevissen PW, Kvaal SI, Dierickx K, Willems G (2012) Ethics in age estimation of unaccompanied minors. J Forensic Odontostomatol 30(Suppl 1):84–102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Jannick De Tobel, Elke Hillewig, Bram Van Eeckhout & Koenraad Luc Verstraete

  2. Department of Imaging and Pathology – Forensic Odontology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Jannick De Tobel & Patrick Werner Thevissen

  3. Department of Head, Neck and Maxillofacial Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium

    Jannick De Tobel

  4. Department of Forensic Anthropology, Netherlands Forensic Institute, Den Haag, The Netherlands

    Michiel Bart de Haas

  5. Department Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven – University of Leuven & Universiteit Hasselt, I-BioStat, Leuven, Belgium

    Steffen Fieuws

Authors
  1. Jannick De Tobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elke Hillewig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michiel Bart de Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bram Van Eeckhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steffen Fieuws
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Patrick Werner Thevissen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Koenraad Luc Verstraete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jannick De Tobel.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

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.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. In case of minors, written informed consent was also obtained from the parents.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Parts of the study population have been previously reported in [2, 3, 26,27,28, 36]. In those studies, the development of their clavicles and third molars was studied for age estimation.

Methodology

• prospective

• cross sectional study/observational

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 392 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Tobel, J., Hillewig, E., de Haas, M.B. et al. Forensic age estimation based on T1 SE and VIBE wrist MRI: do a one-fits-all staging technique and age estimation model apply?. Eur Radiol 29, 2924–2935 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5944-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5944-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation