Specialist learning curves and clinical feasibility of introducing a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity

BJR Open. 2024 Apr 10;6(1):tzae008. doi: 10.1093/bjro/tzae008. eCollection 2024 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: MRI is an emerging imaging modality to assess skeletal maturity. This study aimed to chart the learning curves of paediatric radiologists when using an unfamiliar MRI grading system of skeletal maturity and to assess the clinical feasibility of implementing said system.

Methods: 958 healthy paediatric volunteers were prospectively included in a dual-facility study. Each subject underwent a conventional MRI scan at 1.5 T. To perform the image reading, the participants were grouped into five subsets (subsets 1-5) of equal size (n∼192) in chronological order for scan acquisition. Two paediatric radiologists (R1-2) with different levels of MRI experience, both of whom were previously unfamiliar with the study's MRI grading system, independently evaluated the subsets to assess skeletal maturity in five different growth plate locations. Congruent cases at blinded reading established the consensus reading. For discrepant cases, the consensus reading was obtained through an unblinded reading by a third paediatric radiologist (R3), also unfamiliar with the MRI grading system. Further, R1 performed a second blinded image reading for all included subjects with a memory wash-out of 180 days. Weighted Cohen kappa was used to assess interreader reliability (R1 vs consensus; R2 vs consensus) at non-cumulative and cumulative time points, as well as interreader (R1 vs R2) and intrareader (R1 vs R1) reliability at non-cumulative time points.

Results: Mean weighted Cohen kappa values for each pair of blinded readers compared to consensus reading (interreader reliability, R1-2 vs consensus) were ≥0.85, showing a strong to almost perfect interreader agreement at both non-cumulative and cumulative time points and in all growth plate locations. Weighted Cohen kappa values for interreader (R1 vs R2) and intrareader reliability (R1 vs R1) were ≥0.72 at non-cumulative time points, with values ≥0.82 at subset 5.

Conclusions: Paediatric radiologists' clinical confidence when introduced to a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity was high from the outset of their learning curve, despite the radiologists' varying levels of work experience with MRI assessment. The MRI grading system for skeletal maturity investigated in this study is a robust clinical method when used by paediatric radiologists and can be used in clinical practice.

Advances in knowledge: Radiologists with fellowship training in paediatric radiology experienced no learning curve progress when introduced to a new MRI grading system for skeletal maturity and achieved desirable agreement from the first time point of the learning curve. The robustness of the investigated MRI grading system was not affected by the earlier different levels of MRI experience among the readers.

Keywords: MRI-based assessment of skeletal maturity; growth plate; learning curve; magnetic resonance imaging; skeletal maturity.