Search

Background: The European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) awards prizes for outstanding work presented at their annual scientific meetings. The proportion of ESPR prize-winning abstracts to journal publications is not known. Contextualising abstract-to-publication proportions by evaluating publication experience can yield valuable insights and actionable outcomes to support researchers in overcoming barriers to journal publication., Objective: To assess the abstract-to-publication proportion of prize-winning ESPR abstracts and prize-winning authors' experience of publishing in Pediatric Radiology, the affiliated journal of the ESPR and other specialist international paediatric radiology societies., Materials and Methods: PubMed was searched for titles of ESPR prize-winning abstracts from 1977 (the year of first award) up to and including 2021, where the presenter was either first or co-author, and the article was published 2 years before or after the presentation year. If not found, a general internet search was performed. Titles of all retrieved articles were evaluated for inclusion. A survey was distributed to all ESPR prize winners to better understand their experiences around journal submission., Results: Over 44 years, 108 prizes were awarded. The prize-winning abstract-to-publication proportion was significantly higher (59.3%, OR=2.10, P=0.012) than the recently published pediatric radiology "abstract to publication rate" (41.9% from 2013-2016). Moreover, prize winners were more than twice as likely than to achieve journal publication (OR=2.10), and as first author (OR=1.33). The majority of awardees published their work as first author (52/64, 81.3%): the first-author abstract-to-publication proportion was not significantly higher than the paediatric radiology "abstract-to-publication rate" (48.1%, OR=0.33, P=0.330). Sixty-four survey responses were received (59.3%, out of a total 108 awarded prizes). Just over 20% of prize-winning work was published in Pediatric Radiology, with 41.5% of respondents reporting a good to excellent submission experience., Conclusion: Prize-winning and first-author abstract-to-publication proportions are higher for ESPR-awarded abstracts than the most recently reported paediatric radiology "abstract-to-publication rate", suggesting that prizes are either awarded to work most likely to be published or that being awarded a prize encourages publication. Given that just over 40% of prize-winning abstracts remain unpublished, the ESPR should do more to support and encourage all authors to publish their work., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval: Not required. Conflicts of interest: M.P.: previous member of the ESPR Education and Publication committees; awarded the ESPR Young Researcher Award at the 2016 conjoint IPR congress, Chicago, USA. O.K.: Previous Chair of the ESPR Publication committee; member of the ESPR Musculoskeletal and Oncology Taskforces. S.A.: member of the ESPR Publication committee; Pediatric Radiology Editorial Board Member. S.F.A: ESPR Treasurer; member of the ESPR Publication committee; member of the ESPR Interventional Radiology Taskforce. O.J.A.: ESPR General Secretary; Previous Chair of the ESPR Research committee; member of the ESPR Artificial Intelligence and Post Mortem Imaging Taskforces; Pediatric Radiology Editorial Board member. R.R.v.R.: Previous ESPR General Secretary; Future ESPR congress Committee Chair; member of the ESPR Child Abuse and Outreach Taskforces; Pediatric Radiology Editorial Board member. A.C.O.: Chair of the ESPR Publication committee at the time of conceptualisation and study design; Chair of the ESPR Child Abuse Taskforce; member of the ESPR Musculoskeletal Taskforce; Pediatric Radiology Managing Editor (Outside Americas). Financial disclosures: M.P.: recipient of several ESPR Junior Grants to support attendance at previous ECPR and ESPR annual scientific meetings. The other authors have no other relevant financial interests to disclose. Consent: Not required., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Age estimations are relevant for pre-trial detention, sentencing in criminal cases and as part of the evaluation in asylum processes to protect the rights and privileges of minors. No current method can determine an exact chronological age due to individual variations in biological development. This study seeks to develop a validated statistical model for estimating an age relative to key legal thresholds (15, 18, and 21 years) based on a skeletal (CT-clavicle, radiography-hand/wrist or MR-knee) and tooth (radiography-third molar) developmental stages. The whole model is based on 34 scientific studies, divided into examinations of the hand/wrist (15 studies), clavicle (5 studies), distal femur (4 studies), and third molars (10 studies). In total, data from approximately 27,000 individuals have been incorporated and the model has subsequently been validated with data from 5,000 individuals. The core framework of the model is built upon transition analysis and is further developed by a combination of a type of parametric bootstrapping and Bayesian theory. Validation of the model includes testing the models on independent datasets of individuals with known ages and shows a high precision with separate populations aligning closely with the model's predictions. The practical use of the complex statistical model requires a user-friendly tool to provide probabilities together with the margin of error. The assessment based on the model forms the medical component for the overall evaluation of an individual's age., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethical approval: The retrospective collection and assessment of development stage of clavicle to generate the validation population was approved by the Swedish Ethics Review Authority (Approval number Dnr 2024–00531-01). The Ethics Committee, Medical Faculty, LMU Munich approved the sharing of a retrospectively collected and assessed clavicle dataset (20–324). Competing interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024. The Author(s).)