Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046742›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021

Deep learning for cephalometric landmark detection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Falk Schwendicke, Akhilanand Chaurasia, Lubaina Arsiwala, Jae-Hong Lee, Karim Elhennawy, Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann, Flavio Demarco, Joachim Krois

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

81 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Automated Cephalometric Points Marking System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Falk SchwendickeDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. falk.schwendicke@charite.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1223-1669
Akhilanand ChaurasiaTopic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Berlin, Germany.
Lubaina ArsiwalaDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jae-Hong LeeTopic Group Dental Diagnostics and Digital Dentistry, ITU/WHO Focus Group AI on Health, Berlin, Germany.
Karim ElhennawyDepartment of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Paul-Georg Jost-BrinkmannDepartment of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Orthopedics and Pedodontics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Flavio DemarcoPost-Graduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
Joachim KroisDepartment of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Health Services Research, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDeep learning (DL) has been increasingly employed for automated landmark detection, e.g., for cephalometric purposes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy and underlying evidence for DL for cephalometric landmark detection on 2-D and 3-D radiographs.

methodsDiagnostic accuracy studies published in 2015-2020 in Medline/Embase/IEEE/arXiv and employing DL for cephalometric landmark detection were identified and extracted by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis, subgroup, and meta-regression were performed, and study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. The review was registered (PROSPERO no. 227498). DATA: From 321 identified records, 19 studies (published 2017-2020), all employing convolutional neural networks, mainly on 2-D lateral radiographs (n=15), using data from publicly available datasets (n=12) and testing the detection of a mean of 30 (SD: 25; range.: 7-93) landmarks, were included. The reference test was established by two experts (n=11), 1 expert (n=4), 3 experts (n=3), and a set of annotators (n=1). Risk of bias was high, and applicability concerns were detected for most studies, mainly regarding the data selection and reference test conduct. Landmark prediction error centered around a 2-mm error threshold (mean; 95% confidence interval: (-0.581; 95 CI: -1.264 to 0.102 mm)). The proportion of landmarks detected within this 2-mm threshold was 0.799 (0.770 to 0.824).

conclusionsDL shows relatively high accuracy for detecting landmarks on cephalometric imagery. The overall body of evidence is consistent but suffers from high risk of bias. Demonstrating robustness and generalizability of DL for landmark detection is needed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Existing DL models show consistent and largely high accuracy for automated detection of cephalometric landmarks. The majority of studies so far focused on 2-D imagery; data on 3-D imagery are sparse, but promising. Future studies should focus on demonstrating generalizability, robustness, and clinical usefulness of DL for this objective.

Indexed as

Deep LearningCephalometryRadiographyReproducibility of ResultsArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networksEvidence-based medicineMeta-analysisOrthodonticsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34046742
PMCPMC8310492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.