ArticleRadiation and environmental biophysics2022
Visual grading experiments and optimization in CBCT dental implantology imaging: preliminary application of integrated visual grading regression.
Article in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of the superimposition procedure and type of intraoral impression on the superimposition accuracy of CBCT scans with dental impressions in implant planning: an in-vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Article
- A Markov random field model with cumulative logistic functions for spatially dependent ordinal data.Journal of applied statistics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study uses a general formulation of integrated visual grading regression (IVGR) and applies it to cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan data related to anatomical landmarks for dental implantology. The aim was to assess and predict a minimum acceptable dose for diagnostic imaging and reporting. A skull phantom was imaged with a CBCT unit at various diagnostic exposures. Key anatomical landmarks within the images were independently reviewed by three trained observers. Each provided an overall image quality score. Statistical analysis was carried out to examine the acceptability of the images taken, using an IVGR analysis that was formulized as a three-stage protocol including defining an integrated score, development of an ordinal regression, and investigation of the possibility for dose reduction through estimated parameters. For a unit increase in the logarithm of radiation dose, the odds ratio that the integrated score for an image assessed by observers being rated in a higher category was 3.940 (95% confidence interval: 1.016-15.280). When assessed by the observers, the minimum dose required to achieve a 75% probability for an image to be classified as at least acceptable was 1346.91 mGy·cm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.